review_current_exam_answer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: it stages rather than writes to the platform, requires review confidence fields, and stops when conflicts or rejected combinations occur. It still omits details such as idempotency, failure behavior, or what staging changes in the run state.

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 short, front-loads the core action and no-write guarantee, then lists review preconditions. It is dense but mostly earns its space, with only minor ambiguity in phrasing like 'Stage one current-model reviewed answer.'

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. Still, for a complex nested-review tool with four required parameters, the description omits the role of run_id and question_token and does not fully explain how the staged answer relates to an exam run.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds substantial meaning for the nested review object by naming required fields and multiple-choice requirements, but it does not explain the top-level run_id, question_token, or answer parameters.

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 states a specific action: staging a current-model reviewed answer without platform writes. It is distinguishable from write/submit siblings because it explicitly says there are no platform writes, though it does not name a specific alternative tool.

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 this is the staging step before platform writes and gives preconditions for proceeding. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as save_owned_exam_answer or submit-style tools, nor does it describe exclusions beyond unresolved conflicts and rejected combinations.

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