Preview the removal of all submission files while retaining online text. Assess the impact of file deletions before applying changes.
Previsualiza la eliminación de todos los archivos; conserva el texto online.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| assignment_id | Yes | ||
| course_module_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.0Input schema / properties / assignment_id / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / assignment_id / typeRemoved value: -"integer"v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which already indicate non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it preserves online text, a specific behavioral nuance not covered by annotations. This reinforces the non-destructive nature and provides useful context, going beyond the structured data.
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?
A single, concise sentence that clearly communicates the tool's purpose without wasted words. The essential information is front-loaded, stating the action and key effects immediately.
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?
The tool has only two parameters, no output schema, and annotations cover safety. The description explains the core function but omits any detail on expected output (e.g., what the preview displays) and leaves parameters undocumented. While minimal, it is adequate for a simple preview operation, though an agent would benefit from knowing what the preview returns and how to populate course_module_id.
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%, and the description does not mention any parameters. It fails to explain what assignment_id or course_module_id represent or how they affect the preview. The description carries no responsibility for compensating the lack of parameter documentation, which is a significant gap for an agent to correctly populate the required fields.
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 states 'Previsualiza la eliminación de todos los archivos; conserva el texto online' which clearly indicates a preview operation for deleting all files while preserving text. It distinctly differs from 'delete_submission_files' (actual deletion) and 'preview_replace_submission_files' (preview of replacing files) based on the verb and resource mentioned.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_submission_files' or 'preview_replace_submission_files'. Although the name implies it is for previewing before deletion, no explicit guidance or condition is provided, so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.