发布LMS活动

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by stating that the operation makes activities visible to students. This is a concrete side effect not captured by the readOnlyHint or destructiveHint flags. It does not describe every potential consequence, but the idempotentHint and non-destructive annotation lower the bar.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence followed by parameter and return sections. It is front-loaded with the purpose, and the extra '返回' line is generic but not overly verbose.

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 publish operation, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return value. However, it lacks usage guidance, prerequisites, and error behavior. The mismatch between an empty input schema and listed parameters could also confuse an agent relying on the schema.

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 carries the full burden of parameter documentation. It lists courseId and activityId/activityIds, explains their meaning, and notes that activity IDs can be a single value or list. This is helpful, though it lacks details like types and required status.

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 specific action '发布LMS活动' (release LMS activity) and its effect '使其对学生可见' (make it visible to students). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, update, or 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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as classin_create_activity_noclass or classin_update_classroom_activity. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or examples of appropriate use contexts.

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