edubase_post_exam_autologin

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the operation is reversible via the delete sibling, and the response returns the PIN code and login link just like the getter. It does not explain the privilege requirements hinted at in the schema ('needs special privileges to set!'), which would have pushed this higher.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the result shape, then the disable route. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

For a 5-param mutation tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations, the description supplies the essential routing and return-shape context. The only meaningful omission is the privilege/eligibility caveats for autoadd, autojoin, and the Safe Exam Browser exclusion on the shortlink, which live only in the schema.

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 five parameters in detail (shortlink constraints, autojoin/autoadd privileges). The description only alludes to the optional shortlink and adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb pair (enable/reconfigure) and resource (automatic login for an exam), plus the optional shortlink modifier. It explicitly distinguishes the read sibling (edubase_get_exam_autologin, same result shape) and the disable sibling (edubase_delete_exam_autologin), so an agent can place it precisely among the exam-autologin 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?

Gives clear usage context: use it to enable or reconfigure, and explicitly routes to edubase_delete_exam_autologin for disabling. It also notes the return matches edubase_get_exam_autologin. It does not, however, state when to prefer a plain reconfigure versus first calling the getter, so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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