编辑机构学生

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds that it returns an operation result but gives no further behavioral details like error handling or side effects. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 one-line purpose, a bulleted parameter list, and a return statement. No unnecessary words or redundancy, earning its place efficiently.

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 edit operation with comprehensive schema and annotations, the description covers the essential purpose, parameters, and return. It does not mention prerequisites or error scenarios, but given the tool's simplicity and existing structured data, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it correctly.

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% coverage, describing studentUid, studentName, and response_format in detail. The description's parameter list essentially repeats the schema information without adding new meaning, so it meets the baseline but does not go beyond.

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 'Edit school student information (name)' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like add_school_student and delete_course_student by focusing on editing an existing student's name.

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 makes clear this tool is for editing a school student's name, which implies the appropriate context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools for other operations, so it lacks explicit exclusions but provides clear context.

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