elearning_submit_tugas

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a genuinely non-obvious behavior: the automatic black-frame bypass sent to foto_siswa when the task is in the webcam-required state. However it omits whether the submission is final/irreversible, what happens on failure, and any auth/session prerequisites that 'menyelesaikan pengumpulan' implies.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the core action first and the conditional bypass behavior after, with no filler. It is compact for a mutation tool with a conditional side effect.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main action and the unusual bypass path, but leaves the agent without knowledge of return values, failure modes, or whether the submission can be retried.

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 100%, so tugas_id, file_path, and bypass_photo are already well documented, including the default and the status-2 trigger condition. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Mengunggah berkas jawaban tugas mahasiswa ke sistem') and adds the distinguishing twist that it also finalizes submission, which separates it from elearning_submit_tugas_link. It never names that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred from the word 'berkas' rather than stated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no reference to any alternative. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is for file uploads while elearning_submit_tugas_link is for URL/link submissions, and nothing tells it which conditions require which.

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