execute_student_action

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that the action is 'exacta aprobada' (exact approved), which conveys that it executes a vetted action. This is useful context beyond the annotations, but it doesn't mention that a token is mandatory or that execution is irreversible. It doesn't contradict annotations, but it doesn't fully disclose the irreversible nature either.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently. It is not overlong and uses the available space well, though it sacrifices important detail. It is concise and easy to scan.

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?

This is a destructive tool with a confirmation_token parameter and no output schema. The description doesn't explain the required relationship with preview_student_action, the necessity of the token, or what happens after execution. For a destructive tool, this is a significant gap. An agent would not know that the token must come from a recent preview or that the action cannot be undone.

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 0%, so the descriptions for function, arguments, and confirmation_token are empty. The description provides no explanation of what these parameters represent, only implying the token is for confirmation. With zero schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent without clear meaning for any parameter.

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 ('Ejecuta' = Executes) and a specific resource type ('la acción Moodle exacta aprobada mediante una previsualización reciente'), which distinguishes it from listing or reading tools. It clearly implies it is the execution counterpart to the preview tools, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling, so it's not a 5.

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 'mediante una previsualización reciente' implies the tool should be used after a preview, and the sibling list includes many preview_* tools, so the usage context is apparent. However, it doesn't explicitly state that a confirmation token from the preview is required, nor does it provide exclusions or alternatives. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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