编辑课程

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, aligning with the description's '编辑' (edit). The description adds the behavioral detail of partial updates ('只传需要修改的字段') and a vague success return, but it does not elaborate on effects on unmodified fields, error conditions, or permission requirements beyond the annotations.

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 succinct and well-structured with clear sections for parameters and return, and it front-loads the purpose. Every sentence contributes meaningful guidance without redundancy, making it easily scannable for an agent.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, no output schema, mutation operation), the description is minimal. It relies heavily on the schema and a reference to another tool, leaving gaps such as return value structure, handling of omitted fields, and potential error scenarios. It is adequate but not rich enough for a fully self-contained understanding.

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 has 100% property description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that all parameters except courseId are optional and that only fields needing modification should be passed, which is not explicit in the schema. It also directs users to the create-course tool for parameter meanings, providing a useful cross-reference.

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 '编辑ClassIn课程信息' (Edit ClassIn course information), which clearly identifies the action (edit) and resource (course). It is distinct from sibling tools that target other entities like teachers or folders, though it does not explicitly contrast with related course tools such as 'add_course' or 'end_course'.

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 provides some usage context by saying '其他参数同创建课程，只传需要修改的字段' (other parameters same as creating course, only pass fields needing modification), which implies partial update semantics. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_course' or 'edit_course_class', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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