Fill answers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses persistence ('beook saves them like typed input'), the open-exercise state requirement, and important overwrite semantics such as 'others get unticked' for multiple-choice fields and '[] empties it' for dropzones. Gaps remain around error handling for invalid handles and whether any response or confirmation is returned.

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 core action and persistence behavior are front-loaded in the first clause, followed by compact per-field-kind rules. The semicolon-separated format is dense but organized; every clause conveys necessary invocation detail rather than filler.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral complexity: field-kind-specific formats, persistence, and partial overwrite rules. It would be more complete if it stated that ref comes from beook_read_exercise and described what happens when a handle is invalid or the exercise is not open.

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 only 50%, and the value parameter has no schema description at all. The description compensates thoroughly by explaining exactly what value format to use for each field kind: text with \n, option label or handle for single_choice, list of ticked options for multiple_choice, text for select, pool item text/handle for dropzone, and ordered list for order.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Write answers into the open exercise'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling read/open tools, though it does not explicitly name those siblings. The purpose is unambiguous without opening the schema.

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 phrase 'the open exercise' implies that beook_open_exercise must be used first, but this is never stated explicitly, nor is the relationship to beook_read_exercise for obtaining the ref. No when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives are given, leaving the agent to infer prerequisites.

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