edubase_post_exam_branding

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

Annotations indicate it is not read-only, not destructive, and not idempotent. The description says 'configure or update', confirming mutation, but does not disclose what happens to existing branding (e.g., overwritten, merged) or if partial updates are supported. With annotations providing basic safety profile, the description adds minimal behavioral context.

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 a single sentence of 4 words. While concise, it is too minimal and does not earn its place by adding value beyond the title (which is identical). It lacks structure and additional useful information that would justify such brevity.

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 4 parameters (3 required), no output schema, and annotations present, the description is incomplete. It does not mention constraints like exam existence, the effect of updating, or relations to sibling tools (get/delete exam branding). More context is needed for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 clearly documents each parameter (exam, type, image, color). The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema covers parameter semantics fully.

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 'Configure or update exam branding' clearly states the action (configure/update) and the resource (exam branding). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like edubase_get_exam_branding and edubase_delete_exam_branding, which are read and delete operations respectively. However, it could be more specific by mentioning the aspects of branding (image, color) that are configurable.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., exam must exist) or the recommended order of operations (e.g., using get_exam_branding to see current state before updating). The description lacks any 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context.

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