课程移除老师

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. However, the description adds no context about what destruction occurs, reversibility, permissions, or side effects. The only behavioral statement, '成功返回操作结果', is generic and doesn't clarify the actual outcome.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action. The parameter and return sections are compact but largely duplicate schema information, and the return line is vague. Still, it is efficiently structured with no unnecessary verbosity.

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 that this is a destructive operation with no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the consequences of removing a teacher, error cases, or response structure. A generic 'success returns result' is insufficient for an agent to anticipate the tool's behavior.

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 with more specific descriptions (e.g., courseId obtained from create-course API). The description merely repeats parameter names and minimal definitions, adding no additional meaning beyond the schema. The response_format parameter is omitted entirely from the description.

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 '从课程中移除老师' (Remove teacher from course), a specific verb+resource action that unambiguously identifies the tool's purpose. It is distinct from sibling tools like classin_add_course_teacher or classin_delete_course_student.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as classin_stop_using_teacher or classin_edit_course. There is no context about prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent without criteria for tool selection.

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