移动LMS活动

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

The description only says 'move' and gives a generic success message. It does not disclose that moving is a state change that removes activities from the source unit and adds them to the target, nor any side effects or permissions required. The annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) provide minimal context, but the description adds little beyond the verb.

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 very short and structured with parameter and return sections. It avoids fluff, but it could be slightly improved by including the response_format parameter and providing a more informative return description.

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 vague '成功返回操作结果' is insufficient. The description does not explain the return format, potential errors, or behavioral details like whether activities are moved recursively or if ordering is preserved. It is a minimal description for a 4-parameter state-changing tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well documented. The description lists only three of the four parameters and does not add any additional meaning beyond their names; the response_format parameter is omitted entirely. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the action: moving activities under a unit to another unit. It specifies the resource (activities in a unit) and the destination (other unit), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create/delete activities.

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 usage is implied by the verb 'move' and the parameter structure, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites or exclusions. It does not mention, for example, that the target unit must exist or that this is for reorganizing content.

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