edubase_post_exam_permission

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, meaning the tool modifies data but is not destructive. The description confirms a create operation. However, it does not add behavioral details beyond what annotations already imply, such as whether permissions are additive, whether duplicates are allowed, or what side effects occur (e.g., does it replace existing permissions?). With annotations covering the mutation nature and non-destructiveness, the description adds minimal extra value for transparency.

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, short sentence of 8 words. It is front-loaded and contains no filler. It earns its place by stating the core purpose. However, it could potentially be slightly more informative while still concise (e.g., mentioning that this is additive or requires existing exam/user). But given the minimalism, it is efficient.

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 3 required parameters and an output schema (likely providing confirmation). The description is minimal but paired with the schema and annotations, it is adequate for a basic creation operation. However, it lacks context about idempotency (hint is false, but description doesn't clarify behavior on duplicate), error conditions, or authorization requirements. For a domain with many permission tools, more context on what 'permission' entails (e.g., does it grant a specific role?) would be helpful.

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 input schema already explains each parameter: exam, user, and permission with its enum values. The description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description does not exceed that by providing extra context (e.g., how the identification strings are formatted, or relationship to existing permissions). No value is added 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 'Create new permission for a user on an exam' clearly states the verb ('Create'), the resource ('permission'), and the target context ('user on an exam'). It is specific enough to distinguish it from the general edubase_post_exam_permission? However, among the sibling tools, there are many similar permission creation tools (e.g., edubase_post_class_permission, edubase_post_course_permission), and the description does not explicitly differentiate them beyond the resource type, which is already implied by the tool name and sibling names. Also, the tool name uses 'edubase_post_exam_permission', which together with the description makes the purpose 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There are many sibling permission-creation tools (edubase_post_class_permission, edubase_post_course_permission, etc.), but the description does not mention any prerequisites, context, or situations where using this specific tool is appropriate or when to choose another. No exclusions or alternatives are suggested, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the resource in the name.

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