submit_chapter_quiz

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers genuine behavioral value: exactly one submit click, abort on pre-click failure, and post-click failures surfaced as pending outcomes that are never retried. That is an explicit non-idempotency/retry contract an agent would otherwise have no way to know. It omits auth requirements and the fact that grading is read via a separate sibling tool rather than returned here.

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?

Two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the labeled 'Write safety:' contract. Nearly every clause earns its place; the only weak sentence is the leading 'Select reviewed options', which describes a preceding step rather than 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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the write-safety behavior is well covered. But for a non-idempotent mutation with two opaque identifiers, the description leaves the parameter provenance and the sibling boundary (submit vs submit_reviewed) unresolved, which is exactly what an agent needs before calling it.

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% for plan_id and observation_id, and the description never mentions either parameter or what identifiers they expect (e.g., that plan_id comes from a validated review plan). 'Select reviewed options' gestures at the concept of a reviewed plan but does not explain the two identifiers or their origin, so the coverage gap is unmitigated.

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 verb+resource ('submit', quiz) is inferable, but the description opens with 'Select reviewed options, then read platform grading', which muddles what the tool itself does versus what adjacent steps do. Critically, a sibling named submit_reviewed_chapter_quiz exists and is never distinguished from this tool, so an agent cannot reliably choose between them from the text.

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?

'Select reviewed options' implies reviewed options must pre-exist, which is a weak prerequisite signal, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. With submit_reviewed_chapter_quiz, validate_reviewed_chapter_quiz, and release_course_quiz all in the sibling set, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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