edubase_patch_exam

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. While annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent (idempotentHint=true), and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), the description does not mention any side effects, permission requirements, or constraints like the start-time change limitation described in the parameter schema.

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 sentence with zero waste. It immediately conveys the action and subject, and the structure is optimally front-loaded for AI consumption.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (9 parameters, 1 required) and the full parameter documentation, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks any guidance on typical use cases or return expectations, and with no output schema, an agent may not know what to expect from the response. The annotations mitigate some concerns, but the description itself adds little contextual value.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all 9 parameters. The description itself does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what is already present, which aligns with the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 specific verb ('Update') and resource ('details of an existing exam'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling operations like edubase_post_exam (create), edubase_get_exam (retrieve), and edubase_delete_exam (delete). The word 'existing' further clarifies it is not for creation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or point to other methods (e.g., post_exam for creation, patch_exam_settings for settings changes). Usage is only implicitly inferred from the patch verb.

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