edubase_patch_exam_settings

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: the tool never overwrites already-configured settings, only fills gaps. This aligns with and reinforces the non-destructive, idempotent profile. Return-value behavior is not discussed, but an output schema exists, lowering that burden.

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?

A single 17-word sentence with the action and the key conditional ('only those settings that are not configured yet') front-loaded. There is no filler, no restating of parameter names, and every clause contributes to understanding the tool's unique behavior.

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 full output schema, 100% parameter coverage, and annotations covering idempotency/non-destructiveness, the one-sentence description is nearly sufficient for correct invocation. Minor gaps remain: which setting categories are copied is not enumerated, and edge behavior (e.g., source exam lacking settings) is unaddressed, but these are secondary 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%; each parameter is already well documented (exam as target, source with the 'must be different' constraint, keep_certificate_settings with its default of false). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the overall copy semantics, so the 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 states a specific verb ('Copy'), a clearly bounded resource ('settings from another exam'), and a distinctive scoping condition ('only those... not configured yet in the target exam'). This differentiates the tool from siblings such as edubase_put_exam_settings (full overwrite), edubase_post_exam_settings (create), and edubase_get_exam_settings (read) without needing to open their schemas.

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 use case is implied: fill gaps in a target exam's settings using a source exam as a template. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no named alternatives, and no exclusion criteria telling the agent to prefer put_exam_settings or post_exam_settings in other scenarios. The guidance is inferable but not stated.

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