编辑机构老师

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-destructive, idempotent write operation. The description adds the fact that the operation edits only the name field and returns an operation result on success. It does not disclose potential failure modes or side effects, but for a simple edit, the added context is modest yet useful.

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 extremely concise: a single line stating the purpose, followed by a brief parameter list and return note. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant text. It is well-structured and 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of a complete input schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it edits, the required parameters, and the general return behavior. There is no output schema, but the return note suffices. It lacks only deeper details like error conditions, which are not critical for this simple operation.

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 schema already describes all parameters with 100% coverage. The description repeats the parameter meanings (teacherUid, teacherName) without adding extra semantics like formats, constraints, or relationships. It does not go beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool '编辑机构老师信息（姓名）' (edit institution teacher information (name)), specifying the verb 'edit', the resource 'institution teacher', and the specific field 'name'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_teacher, stop_using_teacher, and restart_using_teacher.

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 does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the purpose is clear enough that the intended usage (editing an existing teacher's name) is implied. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, so it falls short of providing explicit guidance.

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