edubase_post_exam_fields

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: it explicitly states that the custom field list is replaced wholesale and that view_results_identifier is cleared under certain conditions. This disclosure of side effects is valuable. However, it does not elaborate on permissions, reversibility, or idempotency beyond the annotations, so a 4 is appropriate rather than 5.

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 sentences with zero wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the crucial side effect is presented immediately in the second. It is efficient and immediately scannable, earning a perfect score.

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?

The tool has a complex schema with rich parameter descriptions, an output schema, and the description covers the core behavior and a critical side effect. It clarifies that custom fields are fully replaced (not merged) and explains the view_results_identifier clearing condition. While it does not enumerate all response details, the output schema exists, and the description sufficiently covers the essential operational context for an agent to call it 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 all five parameters (exam, name, email, phone, fields) are already well-documented in the schema. The description itself adds minimal parameter-specific detail, only referencing 'built-in user data fields' and 'custom fields' generically. With full schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 a specific action: 'Change the built-in user data fields of an exam, and replace the complete list of its custom fields.' It identifies the resource (exam fields) and distinguishes it from siblings like get_exam_fields (read) and delete_exam_fields (delete). The mention of the side effect on view_results_identifier further clarifies the tool's unique behavior.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or sibling tools. It implies usage by describing the action, but lacks explicit routing guidance such as 'use this instead of patch_exam_settings for field updates.' The purpose is clear enough that an agent could infer when to call it, but no alternatives or conditions are provided.

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