创建LMS课堂活动

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds that a successful call returns an activity ID, which is useful. However, it does not disclose permissions, failure modes, or side effects beyond creation, so it only partially augments the annotation-provided safety profile.

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 well-structured: purpose statement first, followed by an important note, a clear parameter list, and return value. Every sentence adds value, and the parameter formatting is easy to scan.

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 create tool with no output schema, the description covers the core need: what it creates, key parameters, and the return value. It lacks error-condition details and explicit permission requirements, but given the annotation context and sibling tool set, it is largely complete.

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 is empty, so the description carries the full burden for parameter documentation. It lists all seven parameters with meanings, optionality (unitId), types (timestamps in seconds), and default values (seatNum=7), providing complete semantic context beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool creates a classroom activity under an LMS unit, using the verb '创建' (create) and a specific resource. The note about classroom being an upgraded version of 课节 and the sibling tool 'classin_create_activity_noclass' help distinguish this from similar create operations.

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 includes the recommendation to use classroom over lesson for new integrations, providing context for when this tool is appropriate. It also explains optional parameters (unitId) and defaults, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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