edubase_delete_exam_fields

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

Despite the annotations already indicating destructive and idempotent behavior, the description adds valuable context beyond them: it states that built-in fields are kept, that examinee-entered values are retained but hidden, and that the view_results_identifier setting is cleared. These are nontrivial side effects that the annotations do not convey. No contradiction exists.

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 four sentences, each delivering a distinct piece of information: primary action, built-in field exceptions with a pointer to the alternative, data retention behavior, and settings clearance. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains zero filler. Ideal length for the complexity.

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?

The description completely covers the tool's effects: what is removed, what is kept, what happens to existing values, and what settings are affected. Given only one parameter and no output schema, no additional context is needed for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The annotations cover the destructive nature, so nothing essential is missing.

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% description coverage for the single 'exam' parameter, so the schema already fully documents the parameter. The description does not add any extra semantic detail about the parameter itself (e.g., format or constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full burden.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Remove every custom field of an exam.' It clearly states the scope (all custom fields), differentiates from related tools like edubase_post_exam_fields by specifying what is kept vs. what is removed, and notes the side effect on view_results_identifier. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly names the alternative tool for a different use case: 'use edubase_post_exam_fields to turn those off' (the built-in fields). This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, telling the agent that this tool is for removing custom fields while preserving built-in ones, and directing to the sibling for the opposite need.

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