edubase_post_exam_status

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses significant behavioral nuances: the exam itself stays active while only test starts are controlled, and disabling new tests cancels the scheduled automatic disabling. These are non-obvious side effects that annotations alone do not convey.

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 three sentences long, front-loads the core action, and each sentence provides essential context without redundancy. It is efficiently structured for quick agent parsing.

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?

For a two-parameter operation with a full input schema and an existing output schema, the description covers all necessary operational context: when the change is allowed, what the change affects, and a notable side effect. No critical information is missing.

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 input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (exam identification string, allow new tests to be started), covering 100% of parameters. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level meaning, but it is not necessary given full schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb phrase 'Enable or disable starting new tests on an exam', clearly identifying the action and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like edubase_get_exam_status by stating exactly what it controls (test start permission) rather than status retrieval.

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 gives clear contextual conditions for when the operation is valid: while the exam is active and not yet closed, and explicitly notes that it cannot be used in the results viewing period. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the constraints effectively imply usage.

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