edubase_post_exam

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

Annotations already indicate non-readOnly and non-destructive nature. The description adds valuable context: exams are 'time-constrained, secured assessment instances' and top-level in the hierarchy. This exceeds the annotations' detail, though it could mention side effects like auto-notifications or default settings.

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?

Three concise sentences: the first states purpose, the second adds hierarchy and requirement, the third describes exam nature. No redundant information. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 complexity (9 params, 4 required, output schema exists), the description covers the essential concept and requirement. It omits details about optional behaviors (copy_settings, keep_certificate_settings) but these are documented in the schema. Minor gap: no mention of typical use cases or error conditions.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description implicitly references the 'quiz' parameter and time constraints ('open','close'), but does not add new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 clearly states the action ('Create a new exam') and the specific resource ('from an existing Quiz set'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like post_exam_branding or post_exam_permission by emphasizing that it creates the exam itself, not related metadata.

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 highlights a key prerequisite: exams MUST be created from existing Quiz sets, which guides proper use. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., patch_exam for modifications, delete_exam for removal), leaving room for ambiguity in tool selection.

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