edubase_delete_quiz_results_play

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

Even with destructiveHint=true in the annotations, the description adds substantial nuance: archiving makes the result disappear from lists/reports but keeps it restorable by adding the user back; forgetting detaches the play from the user but keeps it for statistics. It also discloses admin-only requirement for non-exam results. This goes well beyond a raw destructive flag and gives an accurate mental model of side effects.

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?

Five sentences, each essential: main purpose, the two behavioral branches, the archive-enabling prerequisite, the current-result restriction, and the admin-only restriction. The prose is dense but well-structured, with no fluff or redundant restatement of the title/name.

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 fully equips an agent to invoke the tool correctly: it explains what happens in both exam and non-exam scenarios, names the prerequisite setting and its source, notes the current-result limitation, and states permission requirements. Given no output schema exists, the state-change explanation is sufficient; there are no obvious missing critical details.

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 already covers 100% of the parameter with 'play' described as 'Quiz play identification string.' The description does not enrich the parameter's meaning (e.g., how to obtain the play ID or expected format), so the schema does the heavy lifting. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Archive or forget the result of a Quiz play,' providing a clear verb (archive/forget) and specific resource (a Quiz play's result). It then explains two distinct outcome modes (exam result vs. outside exam), making it unambiguous what the tool does and distinguishing it from generic delete_quiz or delete_exam tools.

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 gives concrete usage constraints: exam results can only be archived when the archive setting is enabled (referencing edubase_post_exam_settings), only the current result can be archived, and non-exam results can only be forgotten by administrators. These communicate when the tool is applicable. However, it does not explicitly point to an alternative tool for a comparable action, so it stops short of a full 5.

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