prepare_exam_answer_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the operation validates only and does not save or submit, but it does not explain side effects, failure behavior, permissions, or what validation actually checks.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. It immediately states the core action and then adds the key non-persistence constraint.

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 has three required nested parameters, no annotations, and an output schema. The description covers only the high-level validation scope and non-persistence, leaving the plan structure, validation criteria, and parameter expectations unexplained.

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 the description does not explain the required 'snapshot', 'answers', or 'reviews' parameters. For three required parameters, including nested objects, the description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond the bare schema names.

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 gives a clear verb ('Validate') and resource ('a plan for loaded exam questions'), and it explicitly distinguishes validation from saving or submitting. It does not differentiate this tool from nearby siblings such as audit_exam_preview or confirm_exam_browser_draft, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'for loaded exam questions only' provides a scope condition, and 'does not save or submit it' clarifies a boundary. However, it does not say when to use this tool instead of sibling validation or preview tools, so usage is only implied.

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