elearning_submit_tugas_link

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose one important side effect: submission automatically marks the collection status as complete. It does not say whether resubmission is allowed, whether the link is validated, or whether the deadline blocks submission.

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 sentence containing verb, resource, example values, and the automatic-completion side effect, with no filler. It is front-loaded on the action, though the parenthetical example list is slightly long.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, expected input form, and the one significant side effect. What is missing is failure behavior (invalid links, closed deadlines) and its relation to the file-submission sibling.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds useful semantics by clarifying what values 'link' should contain (Drive/GitHub/YouTube URLs) and that 'tugas_id' comes from the assignment list. The mapping to 'item.id' is stated in the schema rather than the description, so added value is modest.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Mengunggah tautan jawaban tugas mahasiswa') and gives concrete examples of link types (Google Drive, GitHub, YouTube). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling 'elearning_submit_tugas', which likely submits a file rather than a link, so an agent must infer the split.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose statement – use this when the student's answer is a URL rather than an uploaded file – but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no mention of prerequisites such as being logged in or the assignment still being open. The alternative 'elearning_submit_tugas' is never named.

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