edubase_post_exam_branding

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's mutation claim ('configure or update') aligns with annotations. It adds useful context by specifying supported image formats (PNG, JPEG, WebP) and the base64/URL input mechanism, which helps agents understand constraints. It doesn't describe errors or idempotency, but since idempotentHint is false, that's acceptable. The description adds some behavioral context beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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, well-structured sentence that states the action, the resource, the object (image and color), and the image type usage. It is concise and front-loaded, with no fluff or redundant phrasing. Every word adds value, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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 100% schema coverage and acceptable annotations, the description is mostly complete. It covers the image type roles and supported formats, which are critical for correct invocation. It could mention whether a URL is fetched by the server or requires prior upload, but given the openWorldHint=true, that is a minor gap. Output is likely simple, so description completeness is sufficient.

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%, with detailed descriptions for each parameter. The description adds a bit of nuance by explicitly explaining 'foreground' as logo and 'background' as cover, which clarifies the type enum beyond the schema. It also reiterates the image formats alert. Though the schema already covers most, the description's clarification of the two image roles adds value, so 4 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 tool's purpose: configuring or updating exam branding with an image (as logo or cover) and a color. The verb 'configure or update' is specific, the resource 'branding of an exam' is well-defined, and it distinguishes from siblings like get_exam_branding and delete_exam_branding by explicitly mentioning the update capability.

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 implies usage through its purpose, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_exam_branding or get_exam_branding. It also lacks prerequisites (e.g., whether the exam must exist or whether earlier branding must be deleted first) and doesn't mention when to use 'foreground' vs 'background'. This is a clear but implicit guidance, earning a 3 for not being misleading but incomplete.

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