edubase_post_exam_settings

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. It adds useful behavioral context: survey-specific limitations on export columns, read-only nature of export_attendance, and the fact that attendance is configured via its source. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand constraints. No contradiction with annotations.

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 relatively short (three sentences) but includes a confusing mention of 'export_attendance' which is not in the parameter list. This could mislead an agent into thinking it can be set. The first two sentences are clear and front-load the key caveat about surveys, but the third sentence detracts from conciseness and clarity.

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 no output schema details provided, the description should offer more guidance on usage scenarios, such as what happens when a survey is used or when a read-only setting is attempted. It covers some caveats but does not explain the differences from sibling settings tools or error behavior. The description is adequate for a simple mutation but lacks depth for such a complex tool.

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%, meaning every parameter is already documented in the schema with detailed descriptions. The description itself adds little beyond what the schema provides – the only extra is the mention of export_attendance, which is not actually a parameter in the schema, so it doesn't clarify parameter semantics. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the action clearly: 'Change individual settings of an exam' – a specific verb with a specific resource. It distinguishes itself as a 'change' tool, which is distinct from 'get' or 'put' siblings, but it does not explicitly differentiate from edubase_patch_exam_settings or edubase_put_exam_settings, which likely have overlapping purposes. The mention of 'export_attendance' which is not in the schema is a minor confusion.

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 some usage context: it notes which export settings are available for surveys (only export_format and export_sort) and that export_attendance is read-only. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling settings tools (patch/put) or any prerequisites. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit about alternatives.

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