edubase_post_exam_users

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

The description adds the precondition that users must already exist ('existing users') and clarifies this is not a user-creation endpoint. However, it does not disclose response behavior, failure modes, or effects on existing assignments; annotations already cover the read/write/destructive profile, so the description adds only modest behavioral context.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the main action is front-loaded and the alternative is a single closing clause. Every word earns its place.

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 mutation with full schema coverage and clear sibling differentiation, the description is nearly complete. It doesn't describe the return payload or side effects, but with annotations covering safety and no nested objects, the core invocation is fully specified.

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 covers both parameters fully ('exam identification string' and 'comma-separated list of user identification strings'), so the description adds no new parameter detail. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the verb 'Assign' and identifies the resource ('existing users to an exam') and the key by which users are identified. It distinguishes this tool from the sibling edubase_post_exam_users_generate by explicitly framing it as operating on existing users.

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 second sentence is an explicit routing instruction: 'Use edubase_post_exam_users_generate to create new exam accounts instead.' This tells the agent when not to use this tool and points to the correct alternative, leaving nothing to inference.

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