submit_reviewed_chapter_quiz

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful traits: exactly one submission, no answer guessing, and no replay of an unknown result after the wait-and-reobserve cycle. It omits the more consequential behaviors an agent needs before firing a graded submission — irreversibility, what happens on validation failure, and whether a partial submit can occur.

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 short lines with no filler, and the single-submission constraint is front-loaded in the first clause. The tradeoff is compression into jargon ('normalize reviewed fields, stage, wait, reobserve') that costs clarity rather than saving words.

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, but for a write/submit tool with zero annotations and three fully undescribed required parameters, the description should specify the shape of answers/reviews and the failure/irreversibility semantics. Those gaps leave an agent unable to call it confidently.

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 only gestures at the parameters ('reviewed fields', 'answers/evidence', 'observe the complete quiz') without explaining the answers array format, what a review object must contain, or where observation_id comes from. The three required parameters remain effectively undocumented in both places.

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?

Specific verb+resource (submit a reviewed chapter quiz) plus an internal workflow summary (normalize, stage, wait, reobserve, submit once). It is distinguishable from observe_chapter_quiz and submit_chapter_quiz by the 'reviewed' qualifier, though the sibling it supersedes is never named explicitly.

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 states one firm precondition: the caller must first observe the complete quiz and supply current-model-reviewed answers/evidence. However, it never says whether validate_reviewed_chapter_quiz should be run first or when to choose submit_chapter_quiz instead, so routing among the several sibling submission tools is left to inference.

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