注册用户

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

The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond annotations: success returns a user UID, and if the phone/email is already registered, it returns error codes 135/461 while still returning the existing user's UID. It also mandates consent before invocation. This is consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint=false) and provides concrete outcomes not available elsewhere.

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 well-structured with a bolded warning, bulleted parameters, and a return-value section. Each line provides essential information without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the complexity of the operation and front-loads the purpose and critical consent requirement.

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 empty input schema and lack of output schema, the description fully covers parameters, return behavior, error handling, and prerequisites. It explains the 'already registered' scenario and return of existing UID, making the tool's behavior predictable. No critical gaps are apparent.

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 is empty ({}), so the description is the sole source of parameter documentation. It lists all parameters with formats (telephone formats, password length 6-20, md5pass 32 chars), mutual exclusivity constraints, and exact enum meanings for addToSchoolMember. This is exceptionally thorough and compensates entirely for the empty schema.

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 tool's function: '注册ClassIn用户账号。为机构的用户代注册ClassIn账号。' (Register a ClassIn user account. Register on behalf of institution users). It uses a specific verb (register) and resource (user account), and clearly differentiates from sibling tools like classin_add_teacher or classin_add_school_student, which handle specific user types.

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 provides a clear prerequisite (consent from the phone/email user) and explains parameter selection rules (telephone/email mutual exclusivity, password/md5pass mutual exclusivity, addToSchoolMember enum values). It gives context on when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions relative to sibling tools.

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