Remove the branding image and color from an exam to restore a neutral appearance. Use this action when custom branding needs to be cleared before publishing or sharing the exam.
Remove the branding image and color from an exam.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| exam | Yes | exam identification string |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the mutation and repeat-safety aspects. The description adds specificity about what is removed (branding image and color), which is useful beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects, error behavior, or authentication requirements, but these are less critical given the annotations.
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 description is a single, concise sentence that immediately states the action and object. It is front-loaded with the core behavior and contains no filler or redundant information.
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 simple delete operation with one parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering destructive/idempotent behavior, the description is sufficiently complete. It states the exact scope (branding image and color) and the target (exam). While it doesn't mention the response format, that's not required without an output schema, and the essential information for invoking the tool correctly is present.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'exam', describing it as 'exam identification string'. The description does not add any further meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides, 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?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('branding image and color') targeted at an exam. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like edubase_get_exam_branding (retrieval) and edubase_post_exam_branding (set/update) by specifying the removal action, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that get_exam_branding is for viewing or post_exam_branding for setting, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions. The usage is implied by the verb but not articulated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.