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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key irreversible behavior: the sitting is scored and no answer can be added afterward. It omits whether this requires all answers, what happens to unanswered cases, whether scoring is immediate, and whether the call can be undone — significant gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Four of the five sentences are regulatory disclaimer boilerplate, so the actual tool behavior is buried at the end rather than front-loaded. The one substantive sentence is efficient, but the overall structure spends most of its length on content unrelated to selecting or invoking this tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the core terminal/irreversible nature is stated. However, for a finalizing mutation with a meaningful allow_partial boolean at 0% schema coverage, the definition leaves the agent without enough information to decide whether partial submissions are possible.

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 0% and both parameters are undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate — but it never mentions run_id or allow_partial. The allow_partial flag is the more serious omission, since the description's "once every case is answered" framing arguably implies partial completion is not permitted, contradicting the parameter's existence.

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?

"Sitting an exam: close the sitting once every case is answered" conveys that this finalizes an exam run, which is clearer than the bare name. But the phrase "close the sitting" is vague terminology, and the description never distinguishes this terminal action from siblings like submit_exam_answers or get_exam_report, so an agent must infer which one ends the exam.

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?

It gives one triggering condition — finish only after every case is answered — which is real when-to-use guidance. It provides no exclusions, no guidance on when to use submit_exam_answers instead, and no mention of what to do when cases remain unanswered, leaving the boundary with siblings implicit.

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