启用机构老师

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, idempotent operation. The description adds that it targets previously disabled teachers but does not disclose potential side effects, failure behavior, or permission requirements. It is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction, but the added behavioral context is minimal.

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 appropriately concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The parameter list is somewhat redundant with the schema, but the return-value sentence adds a small amount of information. Overall, it is efficiently structured without excessive 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 the low complexity (two parameters, no output schema) and the presence of annotations covering idempotency, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter. The return description is vague ('操作结果'), but this is acceptable because no output schema exists and the operation is simple. It could mention prerequisites or edge cases, but current completeness is adequate.

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 provides full descriptions for both parameters (teacherUid and response_format) with 100% coverage. The description simply repeats the teacherUid description and does not add extra meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the verb '重新启用' (re-enable) and the resource '机构老师' (institution teacher), specifying it operates on previously disabled teachers. This directly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'classin_stop_using_teacher', which disables a 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 implies use when a disabled teacher needs to be reactivated, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, though the purpose itself differentiates it from the opposite action.

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