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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the artifact is owner-bound, it is a preview only, and no keys or scores change until execution is approved. That non-mutation-until-approval behavior is the key fact annotations alone would not convey.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, accepted inputs, and the non-mutation guarantee, with the most important constraint front-loaded. No filler.

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 no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers the preview-versus-commit distinction adequately, though it could have mentioned the follow-up confirm tool to complete the workflow picture.

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 all seven parameters are already documented in the schema, including examples and bounds. The description only restates that it accepts section and question numbers, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Creates an owner-bound confirmation preview for correcting a published multiple-choice key') and adds scope detail (point deltas for students). An agent can distinguish it from confirm_correct_answer_key, which performs the actual correction, without opening either schema.

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 makes clear this is a preview stage that precedes approval ('Keys and scores remain unchanged until approved preview execution'), giving clear usage context. It stops short of naming confirm_correct_answer_key as the follow-up sibling, so the agent must infer the routing from names alone.

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