edubase_post_scorm_transfer

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral detail beyond the verb 'transfer'. It doesn't confirm whether the operation modifies the SCORM's ownership, whether it can be undone, or what side effects (if any) occur. With no annotations for destructive or idempotent, the description should clarify if this is a safe, reversible action, but it remains silent, leaving the agent uncertain about consequences.

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 short sentence, which is efficient and directly states the action. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool with only two parameters. However, the brevity comes at the cost of missing crucial context, but for conciseness itself, it scores well.

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?

The tool has an output schema, but the description does not mention what the output represents or any side effects. Given the complexity of 'transferring' SCORM (which could involve permissions, ownership changes, or notifications), the single sentence is insufficient. There is no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or what happens after transfer. The presence of many similar transfer tools (post_course_transfer, post_quiz_transfer) suggests a pattern, but this description alone doesn't leverage that or add specificity.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions 'user identification string' and 'SCORM identification string', so the description adds no value. The tool's description doesn't clarify what 'identification string' means (e.g., UUID, email, internal ID) or any format expectations. Given full schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and no extra semantic info is provided.

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 tool transfers a SCORM object to a user, which is a clear verb+resource+recipient. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from the many sibling 'transfer' tools (e.g., post_course_transfer, post_quiz_transfer) or explain what 'transfer' means in this context (e.g., assigning ownership vs. copying). It is minimally clear but lacks specificity to stand out among the ~160 siblings.

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 like post_scorm_permission or post_scorm_tag. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., user must exist, SCORM must be valid) or relationship to permissions. It implies a simple transfer operation but offers no context for choosing it over other SCORM-related actions.

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