设置课节录课/直播/回放

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the key constraint about ended classes, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose what happens on partial failure (e.g., some classIds invalid) or whether existing settings are overwritten, so it adds moderate context beyond annotations.

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: a clear opening statement, a prominent caveat, a param list, and a return statement. It is not overly long, and the note is front-loaded. However, the parameter list largely duplicates schema descriptions, which slightly reduces efficiency and 'earned space'.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify return values, but it only states '成功返回操作结果' (returns operation result on success), which is vague. It also omits behavior on invalid inputs or partial failures. Given the annotations cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, the description is adequate but leaves gaps in error/response semantics.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats parameter meanings already present in the schema (e.g., 0=关闭, 1=开启) without adding new semantic details. The only added value is the note about ended classes applying to classIds, but this is minor. Thus, the description does not significantly enhance the 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 verb ('设置' - set) and specific resource ('课节' - class/lesson) with the options for recording, live streaming, and playback. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like classin_delete_class_video or classin_update_video_lock_status, which handle different operations.

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 includes a specific usage constraint: '已结束的课节不能设置录课、直播等功能' (ended classes cannot be set). This provides clear context for when the tool is applicable. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the batch-setting purpose is clear from the title and description, making it easy to differentiate from single-action siblings.

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