edubase_post_quiz_permission

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and destructiveHint=false (not destructive). The description adds only that it 'creates' a permission, which is consistent but adds no deeper behavioral context: no mention of whether the action is idempotent (though idempotentHint=false is set), how existing permissions are affected (overwrite or additive), or any side effects like triggering notifications. With minimal annotation detail, the description should carry more behavioral weight.

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 a single sentence of eight words, which is very brief. While it effectively states the core purpose, it sacrifices important details that could fit in two or three additional sentences. For a tool with three parameters and a complex permission system (six levels), this level of conciseness is under-specified, earning a score of 3.

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 complexity of permissions (six levels, potential conflicts with existing permissions, user-quiz relationship prerequisites), the description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly without external knowledge. The schema covers parameter syntactics but not semantics like 'what does each permission level allow?' or 'can I assign multiple permissions to the same user?'. Even with an output schema, the description should provide more operational context.

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 coverage is 100% and all three parameters have descriptive names and descriptions in the schema (e.g., permission enum values are listed). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the necessary work of explaining each parameter's purpose and allowed values.

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 clearly states the verb 'create', the resource 'permission', and the scope 'for a user on a quiz'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like edubase_get_quiz_permission and edubase_delete_quiz_permission which perform different operations on the same resource, and from tools like edubase_post_exam_permission which operate on different entities.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the user must already be associated with the quiz), what happens if a permission already exists, or how this differs from edubase_post_quiz_transfer which also modifies quiz-user relationships. The tool name alone implies the domain, but the description should offer explicit context.

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