edubase_post_exam_settings

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

Annotations already declare the tool is not read-only and not destructive, so the description need not restate that. However, the description adds no context about partial-update semantics, side effects, or permission requirements beyond what annotations imply. Worse, it references an 'export_attendance' setting that does not appear in the input schema, which could confuse an agent into expecting a parameter that does not exist.

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 short (three sentences) and front-loaded with the primary purpose, which is good. But the second sentence about export columns is somewhat convoluted, and the third sentence about a non-existent parameter is unnecessary and could be removed. Overall it is concise but includes one piece of potentially misleading information.

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 27 parameters and a complex domain, the description should clarify operational semantics and distinguish this tool from its close siblings. It fails to explain whether this is a partial update, how it relates to 'edubase_put_exam_settings', or what the output schema represents. The survey and read-only notes are helpful but not sufficient for an agent to confidently select and call this tool without additional investigation.

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 schema provides 100% coverage of all 27 parameters with detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description, however, adds no meaningful parameter guidance and introduces an undocumented 'export_attendance' setting, which is potentially misleading. It repeats survey restrictions already present per-parameter in the schema, thus failing to add value beyond the structured definitions.

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 opens with 'Change individual settings of an exam', a clear verb+resource statement that distinguishes it from broad exam creation/deletion tools. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tools 'edubase_put_exam_settings' or 'edubase_patch_exam_settings' which likely handle full or partial updates, leaving some ambiguity about when this specific tool is the right choice.

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 usage for tweaking individual exam settings and provides important constraints (surveys restriction, read-only export_attendance) that guide parameter selection. Yet it never explicitly states when to use this over the put/patch variants, nor does it mention prerequisites like manager permissions or the distinction between partial and full updates.

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