edubase_put_exam_settings

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

Annotations already declare idempotent=true, readOnly=false, destructive=false, but the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: exactly which data is NOT copied (automatic account generation, rounds, notifications, login settings, previously used patterns), what is preserved (branding, course, SCORM, video), and a conditional edge case for the questionless setting. This is exactly the kind of side-effect disclosure that structured fields cannot convey.

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 main action is front-loaded and most sentences carry necessary behavioral detail. The final sentence about the questionless setting is dense and slightly convoluted, but overall the structure is efficient with minimal waste.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and rich annotations, the main remaining burden is behavioral disclosure, which the description handles well. It omits any authorization/permission prerequisites, which would have completed the picture for a mutating tool.

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%, so both exam/source and keep_certificate_settings are fully documented in the schema, setting the baseline at 3. The description clarifies the source-vs-target relationship at a conceptual level but never mentions the keep_certificate_settings flag, adding little beyond the already-complete schema.

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 specific verb ('Replace') and resource ('the complete configuration of an exam with the configuration of another exam'), immediately distinguishing it from the get_/post_/patch_exam_settings siblings by scoping it to a wholesale configuration transfer. An agent can tell this is a full overwrite from a source exam, not a partial update.

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 usage through its behavior (copy settings from one exam to another) but never explicitly states when to use it versus patch_exam_settings or post_exam_settings. No prerequisites or 'use this when...' guidance is given, so context is implied rather than declared.

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