edubase_delete_quiz_grading_preset

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds important behavioral context by listing the conditions that prevent deletion (global presets, in-use presets), which governs when the operation will succeed or fail. It also aligns with idempotentHint=true since attempting to delete an already-deleted preset would likely be idempotent. No contradiction with 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, tightly worded sentence that states the action and immediately provides the key constraints. There is zero wasted text, and the critical limitation is introduced upfront. This is an exemplary concise structure.

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 tool is simple: one parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile. The description provides the essential operational constraint (what cannot be removed) that an agent must know before calling. Nothing needed for successful invocation is missing; the agent can safely call this without further context.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'preset', described as 'grading preset identification string'. The description does not add further detail about the parameter format or how to obtain it, but the schema already provides sufficient semantic meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the description does not need to compensate.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Remove a custom grading preset.' It also specifies the scope (custom) and immediately distinguishes itself from other deletion tools like edubase_delete_quiz or edubase_delete_quiz_questions by targeting a unique resource type. The title annotation reinforces the purpose without conflicting.

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 states when NOT to use the tool: global presets and presets used by a Quiz set or exam cannot be removed. This gives the agent a clear boundary for usage. It does not explicitly name an alternative or state 'use this when...' but the exclusion criteria effectively guide the agent on valid conditions. No sibling tool directly overlaps in function.

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