编辑LMS课堂活动

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive write operation. The description adds the partial-update behavior that only provided fields are modified. It does not address the openWorldHint=true annotation, leaving potential side effects undisclosed, and the return note '成功返回操作结果' is largely tautological.

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, with a one-sentence purpose statement followed by a short parameter list and return note. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though the return statement '成功返回操作结果' adds little value. No redundant filler is present.

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?

With no output schema and an empty input schema, the description must supply all operational detail. It provides only courseId and activityId, leaving the actual editable fields unspecified as '其他参数可选'. For an update tool among many activity management siblings, this is insufficient for an agent to safely execute the tool or know what fields can be modified.

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, making the description the only source of parameter information. It lists courseId and activityId but does not specify their types, required status, or the full set of 'other parameters' that can be passed. The description partially compensates for the schema gap but leaves significant ambiguity about the actual updatable fields.

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 function as '编辑LMS课堂活动信息' (edit LMS classroom activity information), using a specific verb ('编辑'/'edit') and resource ('课堂活动'/'classroom activity'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like classin_create_classroom_activity and classin_delete_activity through the explicit edit action.

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 usage via '其他参数可选，只传需要修改的字段' (other parameters optional, pass only fields to modify), indicating partial update semantics. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions, nor does it reference sibling create/delete tools for comparison.

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