create_paper

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the paper belongs to the current teacher, creates sections and associations, and optionally binds to a lesson slot with constraints (both lesson_id and slot_seq required). It also mentions that bound papers are private and never set-public, and returns success/error.

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 well-structured with a clear main purpose sentence, followed by usage context and parameter details. It uses bold for emphasis and lists parameters. It is slightly lengthy but efficient, with every sentence providing value.

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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters, 2 required, optional binding), the description covers the full workflow: prerequisite (questions ingested), parameter constraints, behavioral side effects (private paper), and return format. It addresses all necessary context for correct usage.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains each parameter meaningfully: name (1-200 chars), question_ids (order-sensitive, at least 1), paper_category_id (optional), lesson_id/slot_seq (must coexist, binding semantics). It adds constraints and usage beyond the schema's basic types.

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 clearly states the tool's action: assembling a paper from question IDs, maintaining order, and associating it with the current teacher. It specifies the resource and verb distinctly, differentiating from siblings like 'compose_paper' or 'update_paper'.

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 explains when to use: after questions are ingested, for full paper entry. It also details optional lesson slot binding, clarifying when it becomes a preparation paper. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear.

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