添加机构老师

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. The description adds the prerequisite that the user must be registered and notes a post-usage capability, but it does not disclose details about error handling, idempotency effects, or side effects beyond what annotations already provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement, a brief parameter list, and a return note. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary filler. The parameter list is slightly redundant but not excessive.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple add operation with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, key parameters, and return. It also provides useful context about the registered-user prerequisite and the post-condition of being able to assign the user as a teacher. It does not detail the return structure or error cases, but given the tool's simplicity, the level of completeness is adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema carries the parameter documentation burden. The description repeats teacherUid and teacherName but omits response_format despite it being a schema parameter, and it does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 for high schema coverage is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states '将已注册用户添加为机构老师' (add a registered user as an organization teacher), specifying the verb, resource, and target role. It also explains that after adding, the user can be assigned as a teacher in courses, distinguishing it from sibling tools like edit_teacher or stop_using_teacher.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool (when a registered user needs to become a teacher) and provides a post-condition (can be assigned in courses). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among sibling tools, such as using classin_register_user to create a new user first or classin_edit_teacher to modify existing teacher details.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.