edubase_post_exam_report

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, non-destructive and non-idempotent behavior, but the description adds important context those do not: the returned link is unauthenticated, single-use, expires in one hour, only includes examinees visible to the caller, and requires reporting permission on the exam. This is a meaningful disclosure of security and lifetime semantics beyond the structured data.

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?

Four short sentences that are front-loaded with the core action, followed by the link lifetime and permission constraints. Almost no waste, though the permission note could be folded into the same sentence as the visibility constraint.

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 an output schema present and full schema parameter coverage, the description need not explain return values, and the unusual link semantics (unauthenticated, one-time, one-hour expiry) are stated. The only remaining gap is that round being mandatory for results-round reports is left entirely to the schema.

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 every parameter including the nested filter object is already documented in the schema. The description adds only the implicit constraint that reports are scoped to the caller's visible examinees, with no extra syntax or format semantics for exam, report, round, format or filters.

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 names a specific verb and resource: generating a download link for an exam report, which is clearly distinct from a read-only report listing such as edubase_get_exam_report. It does not itself contrast with edubase_post_exam_results_export, though the schema does reference that sibling for filter semantics.

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?

Usage context is implied through the permission requirement ('Needs reporting permission for the exam') and the pointer to edubase_get_exam_report in the schema for valid report identifiers, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance or routing to the alternative export tool.

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