zju_submit_homework

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

Discloses that this is a real write operation (写操作，会真实提交) and that submission delivers to the teacher. Mentions retraction possibility if enabled. Without annotations, description carries full burden; it covers the key behavioral trait of being a permanent submission.

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?

Very concise one-paragraph description with critical information front-loaded (write operation, real submission). No fluff, every sentence adds value.

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?

For a write tool with 3 params and no output schema, description covers inputs, return values (submission_id, file name, time), and links related tools. Could mention potential overwrite behavior, but still fairly complete.

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 baseline 3. Description adds context for activity_id (source from list or URL) but largely restates schema for file_path and comment. Minimal additional semantic value beyond schema, but sufficient.

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?

Description clearly states the tool submits a local file as homework to 'ZJU Online', using specific verbs '提交' and resources. It distinguishes from sibling tools like zju_retract_homework by noting the submission is real and that retraction is possible separately.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool (to submit homework) and provides alternative (zju_retract_homework for retraction) and prerequisite (obtain activity_id from zju_list_todos or URL).

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