mark_attendance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it states this WRITES to Moodle, that the change is visible to the student, and that user confirmation is required first. It doesn't cover reversibility or permission requirements, which prevents a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: side effect first, then action, example, source hint, and confirmation requirement. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 simple 3-parameter write with no output schema, the description covers the action, effect, example, parameter source, and a safety confirmation. Return or error behavior is not described, but that is minor for this kind of mutation.

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%, with all three parameters already described. The description adds only the provenance hint that statusid comes from attendance_sessions, which is useful but not a major addition over the 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 ('Set') and a precise resource ('one student's status in one session'), and gives a concrete example ('turn an absence into excused after a medical certificate'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like attendance_report, which is read-only reporting.

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?

It gives a clear use case and directs the agent to attendance_sessions for statusid. It doesn't explicitly list when not to use the tool, but the context is clear enough that an agent can select it appropriately.

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