停用机构老师

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds one useful behavioral detail: the teacher cannot be assigned as a course teacher after disabling. However, it does not disclose what happens to existing course assignments, whether the operation is reversible, or error behavior, which would be valuable for a destructive idempotent operation.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a sentence describing the effect, a parameter list, and a return note. No unnecessary content exists, and the main verb is front-loaded.

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 tool with one required parameter, the description covers the core API: purpose, effect, parameter, and return. However, it leaves ambiguity around the impact on existing course assignments and behavior when already disabled, which is relevant for a destructive, idempotent operation. Overall, it's nearly complete but missing a couple of behavioral nuances.

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 already provides 100% coverage for both parameters, including descriptions. The description repeats the teacherUid definition but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as where to find the UID or any format constraints.

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 purpose with a specific verb and resource: '停用机构老师' (disable institution teacher). It further clarifies the effect: '停用后该老师无法被指定为课程老师' (after disabling, the teacher cannot be assigned as a course teacher). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'classin_restart_using_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 the use case (disable a teacher so they can't be assigned to courses) but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'classin_restart_using_teacher' or 'classin_edit_teacher'. There are no explicit exclusions or prerequisite conditions.

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