edubase_post_quiz_grading_preset

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds the feature-flag prerequisite, which is helpful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose what the response looks like or any side effects (e.g., whether creating an existing title fails), which would be valuable for an agent.

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 concise sentences that front-load the purpose and then a key prerequisite. No waste, and the critical information is conveyed efficiently.

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 the rich schema with full parameter documentation and an output schema, the description covers the essential context. The main missing piece is a hint about the available 'type' values or cross-referencing to the GET/PATCH siblings, but this is minor for a create operation with detailed schema.

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%, so parameters are fully documented with type-specific constraints. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already explains, so baseline 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 states a clear action ('Create') and resource ('grading preset'), which is distinct from the sibling verbs patch, delete, get. However, the word 'custom' could be misleading because the 'type' parameter supports several non-custom types (hungarian-school, hungarian-university). Minor ambiguity prevents a 5.

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 a useful prerequisite ('Needs the custom grading feature to be enabled'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the siblings (patch, delete, get) or exclude alternatives. Usage context is only implied by 'create'.

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