edubase_post_exam_fields

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

The description discloses a non-obvious side effect: view_results_identifier is cleared when the selected custom field is no longer a unique free text field. It also explicitly states that the custom field list is replaced, which is important mutation behavior. Annotations already indicate a non-idempotent write, and the description adds context 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?

The description is two dense sentences: the first defines the operation, the second warns about a conditional side effect. There is no redundant or filler text, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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-parameter mutation with a complex nested array, the schema provides thorough parameter documentation, and an output schema exists. The description supplies the essential orientation and the key side effect. It could add an explicit caution that replacement is permanent, but 'replace the complete list' and the schema note adequately cover that.

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%, and the input schema provides very detailed descriptions for exam, name, email, phone, and fields. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond referring to built-in fields. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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 states specific verbs ('change' for built-in fields, 'replace' for custom fields) and clearly names the resource (exam) and scope (complete list). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like edubase_get_exam_fields (read) and edubase_delete_exam_fields (delete all). The purpose is immediately clear.

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 this is the write/update operation for exam fields, but it does not explicitly name when to use this tool versus alternatives. The schema's fields parameter mentions edubase_delete_exam_fields, but the primary description lacks that routing guidance. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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