edubase_put_exam_settings

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by detailing exactly what is and isn't affected: it copies complete configuration but never copies exam-specific state, and it keeps the target's branding and attached materials. This clearly communicates side effects and reassures about non-destructive behavior, complementing the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). No contradictions found.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently enumerates exclusions and preserved items. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 tool's complexity (full config replacement) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the behavior thoroughly: what's copied, what's never copied, and what's kept. It could optionally mention the effect of keep_certificate_settings (default false) in the description, but the schema already documents that. Overall, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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%, providing baseline 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that the 'settings' being copied exclude exam-specific data and state, and that branding and learning materials are kept. This helps the agent understand what the 'source' parameter will actually contribute and what 'exam' (target) retains, adding value beyond the field descriptions.

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 ('complete configuration of an exam') with a clear source→target relationship. It also explicitly outlines what is not copied and what is kept, which distinguishes it from other settings-related tools like patch (partial changes) and post (creation).

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 makes it clear the tool is for replacing an exam's entire configuration with another exam's configuration, and even details exclusions (exam-specific data/state) and preserved elements (branding, learning materials). While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or say 'use this when...', the specificity gives strong contextual guidance. It would benefit from a direct note that partial updates belong to patch_exam_settings, but this is a minor gap.

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