修改课节

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

Annotations declare non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior, which the description aligns with by presenting update semantics. The description adds that fields are replacements ('新的'), but does not disclose whether omitted fields are left unchanged or cleared, nor any authentication or side-effect details 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 compact: a one-sentence purpose, a bulleted parameter list, and a return line. Each element serves a clear function with no redundant or filler content, making it easy to scan and quickly understand the tool's interface.

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?

With no output schema, the return line '成功返回操作结果' is vague and does not detail the response format. The description lists all editable parameters but omits behavior on partial updates or field validation. However, the extensive schema descriptions and safety annotations compensate for some of these gaps, making the tool minimally complete for straightforward use.

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?

Schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description restates parameters in Chinese and adds the '新的' prefix to clarify replacement semantics, but this is minimal additional meaning over the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 '修改课节信息' (modify course class information) and enumerates all editable fields with 'new' values, making the tool's purpose specific and distinct from sibling add/delete/rename operations. It is unambiguous that this edits an existing course class.

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 verb '修改' implies editing an existing class, and sibling tools provide alternatives like add and delete. However, there is no explicit statement about when to use this tool versus others, nor any mention of prerequisites or excluded scenarios, leaving the guidance merely implied rather than explicit.

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