edubase_post_exam_round

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

The description discloses the side effects: closing running tests, detaching results, resetting accounts, and the specific constraints via referenced settings. This adds value beyond the annotations, which only say readOnlyHint=false. However, there is a potential contradiction with destructiveHint=false considering the resetting of accounts; thus the transparency is good but the contradiction lowers it.

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 well-structured: the main action is stated first, followed by side effects, and ends with conditions. It is not overly verbose and each sentence contributes to understanding, though it could be slightly more succinct by separating the constraints into a cleaner list.

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 that an output schema exists and the input schema covers all parameters, the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior and preconditions. It explains the purpose, side effects, and limitations, making it complete for a mutation tool. Slight gap: it doesn't mention potential errors or edge cases beyond restrictions, but the referenced settings handle those.

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?

The description provides no additional parameter-specific details beyond what the input schema already covers at 100% coverage. The schema fully explains exam, force, and notify, so the description merely restates the overall purpose without enriching parameters. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool starts a new exam round and describes the specific effects (closing tests, detaching results, resetting accounts). It is unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings, as no other listed tool performs this round-starting operation.

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 explicitly lists conditions under which a new round cannot be started (locked, archived, frozen, results viewing period started), giving clear guidance on when not to use. However, it does not mention alternative tools or when to prefer this over others, but since no direct alternative exists, the exclusion is sufficient.

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