edubase_put_exam_settings

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

Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false), though it does replace settings. The description adds valuable context about what is preserved (branding, materials) and what is never copied (state, patterns), going beyond the annotations. It doesn't mention side effects beyond the stated scope, but given openWorldHint=true, some external effects might be expected; still, the description covers the key behavior.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, then clarifying exclusions and preserved items. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 description fully explains what is replaced, what is never copied, and what is kept, which is sufficient for a complex copy operation. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. No critical operational aspect 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description does not add additional parameter-level detail, but it does clarify the relationship between exam and source. This meets the baseline for high coverage without requiring extra compensation.

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 action (replace complete configuration) and the resource (exam), and explicitly lists what is and isn't copied. It distinguishes this from partial-update siblings like edubase_patch_exam_settings by emphasizing the complete replacement nature.

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 implies when to use it (when you need to copy all settings from one exam to another) but doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The context that it replaces everything and keeps certain items is clear, but explicit exclusions are missing.

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