修改视频锁定状态

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

Annotations already declare the operation as non-readonly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the behavioral consequence that locking prevents deletion, which provides meaningful context beyond what annotations convey. No contradictions found.

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 brief and organized into parameter and return sections. It includes the key behavioral note without unnecessary fluff, though the parameter list duplicates schema content, which slightly reduces efficiency.

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 is simple and the description covers the effect, parameters, and a return statement. However, the return description ('操作结果') is vague, and without an output schema, it doesn't explain the result structure or possible error cases. Some prerequisite context (e.g., classId source) is present in the schema but not reinforced.

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 description coverage is 100%, and each parameter is documented in the input schema. The description restates the same parameter meanings without adding extra semantic detail or format guidance, so it does not compensate further beyond the schema baseline.

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 modifies the lock status of a class video and explains the consequence (locked videos cannot be deleted). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like classin_delete_class_video, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool (to prevent video deletion) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It lacks direct comparison with sibling tools, so the guidance is only implied.

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