edubase_patch_quiz_grading_preset

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

The description adds a specific rule ('Global presets cannot be modified') on top of the annotations, which already indicate non-destructive and idempotent behavior. Since annotations cover the general safety profile, this extra rule provides additional context but does not describe other behaviors like response format or side effects. 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 brief, consisting of two short sentences. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and the exclusion is stated directly. No fluff or redundancy, though it could be slightly more informative about parameter 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?

With a fully described schema and an output schema present, the description is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly. The key limitation is captured, and the rest of the behavior is outlined by annotations. Still, it lacks any note about the type immutability rule (which is in the schema, so not a gap here) or about how updates are applied; the overall context is adequate but not rich.

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% coverage, describing each parameter (type, title, grades, preset, language) with its own documentation. The description itself adds nothing beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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 clear verb ('Update') and a specific resource ('existing custom grading preset'), and immediately distinguishes from the global preset case. It makes clear this is the patch operation for grading presets, differentiating from sibling tools like post (create) and delete.

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 conveys when this tool applies (existing custom grading preset) and an explicit exclusion (global presets cannot be modified). However, it does not name alternative tools (like post for creation) or give guidance on when to prefer this over them, leaving some inference needed.

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