save_online_submission

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the base safety profile is known. The description adds slight context by mentioning a confirmation requirement, but it fails to disclose side effects beyond replacement (e.g., what happens if the token is invalid, whether previous text is permanently lost). It adds only marginal value over the annotations.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence with no fluff. However, it lacks structure: no parameter descriptions, no conditional information, and no breakdown of the operation. Conciseness is good, but it sacrifices necessary content, making it a bare minimum rather than a well-structured definition.

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?

Given that this is a destructive mutation tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the confirmation token mechanism, the purpose of assignment_id versus course_module_id, or the expected behavior of the operation. An agent cannot correctly and safely invoke this tool based on the provided information alone.

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 description carries the full burden of explaining the parameters. It only implicitly touches on 'online_text' ('texto online') and leaves assignment_id, course_module_id, and confirmation_token completely unexplained. This is a critical gap for a tool with three required parameters.

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 action ('replaces the online text') with a clear resource and qualifier ('exact content previously confirmed'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling preview_save_online_submission by being the actual save operation, though it doesn't name that sibling.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus its preview counterpart, nor any prerequisites like obtaining a confirmation token. An agent gets zero direction on the correct invocation context.

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