uplus_answer_homework

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a mutation-side effect and a validation gate (submission blocked on unanswered/errored questions) plus the force_submit escape hatch. It omits other important traits for a write tool: whether submission is irreversible, whether answers are persisted when submit=false, and any permission/auth requirement.

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 core action is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by the two pieces of information that actually need elaboration: the answers key/value format and the submission gate. No filler, though the backtick-heavy formatting is slightly noisy.

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?

For a 5-parameter mutation tool with a nested object, no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the answer format and the blocking rule but leaves out what the call returns, how errors/partial failures surface, and how to obtain valid question ids. Adequate but not complete.

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, and it does for the hardest parameter: `answers` is documented as mapping question_id or question order number to normalized values (single letter, combination, true/false, blank text). force_submit's intent is also covered. `submit` (defaulting to true), `task_id` and `course_id` are left to inference.

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 first sentence gives a concrete verb and resource: fill objective questions with provided answers and optionally submit. It is clearly distinct from read-oriented siblings like uplus_inspect_homework and uplus_list_homeworks, though it never names a sibling explicitly to sharpen the boundary.

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 a real when-not condition — submission is blocked while questions are unanswered or errored, and force_submit should only be used after deliberately reviewing the outcome. It does not, however, route the agent to a prerequisite step (e.g. using uplus_inspect_homework to obtain question ids) or explain when to leave submit=false.

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