修改学校设置

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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds only that success returns an operation result, which is generic and adds minimal context beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists, but no additional behavioral nuance (e.g., side effects, permissions) is disclosed.

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 and front-loaded with the purpose. However, the parameter list duplicates schema information and the return line is vague, which slightly reduces value. Overall, it remains efficient and readable.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, but without an output schema, the vague return statement ('成功返回操作结果') leaves result structure unclear. The description also doesn't explicitly explain that changes apply globally, though '全局设置' hints at it. The description is adequate but leaves gaps about return values and scope.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters, including response_format. The description redundantly lists the two setting parameters but omits response_format, adding no new information beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is high, the correct baseline is 3.

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 '修改机构/学校的全局设置' (modify institution/school global settings), specifying a concrete verb and resource. It lists the two settable parameters, which distinguishes it from per-teacher or per-student edit tools like classin_edit_teacher. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternative tools, so it falls short of the highest score.

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 usage for school-wide global settings but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus other edit tools (e.g., classin_edit_teacher, classin_edit_course). There are no exclusions or alternative suggestions, so it only meets the 'implied usage' bar.

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