edubase_post_exam_autologin

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

The annotations already declare this is not read-only and not destructive, and the description does not contradict them. The description adds value beyond the annotations by stating that calling this tool returns the configuration with the PIN code and login link, and that it behaves the same way as edubase_get_exam_autologin, which helps an agent predict the response shape and side effects.

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 three focused sentences: first the action and resource, then the return behavior, then the disable alternative. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler, redundant details, or restatement of the schema.

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 complete input schema, an output schema available, and sibling tools explicitly mentioned, the description covers nearly everything an agent needs. The only minor gap is that it does not state that reconfiguring may overwrite an existing autologin configuration, but this is reasonably inferable from 'Enable or reconfigure'.

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 schema already documents all five parameters with 100% coverage, including the shortlink constraints, privilege requirements, and defaults. The description only mentions 'shortlink' generally and does not add meaningful semantics 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 uses a specific verb-resource pair, 'Enable or reconfigure automatic login for an exam', and also mentions the optional shortlink behavior. It clearly differentiates this tool from siblings edubase_get_exam_autologin and edubase_delete_exam_autologin, so an agent can identify the correct operation without inspecting 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 description explicitly references edubase_get_exam_autologin for the returned configuration and edubase_delete_exam_autologin for disabling, providing useful routing among the related sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly state conditions such as when a shortlink is appropriate or when special privileges are required, though those details live in the parameter descriptions.

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