persist_variants

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

With no annotations provided, the description partially covers behavior: it indicates the tool is a write operation (storing), mentions ownership by logged-in teacher, and outlines return values. However, it does not disclose mutability, idempotency, or full authorization requirements.

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 concise, with a clear structure: action, prerequisite, parameters, return value. Each sentence contributes meaning, though it could be slightly more streamlined.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, parameters (mostly), and output format. However, the required thread_id parameter is not defined, and the 'manual' reference is vague. For a tool with two parameters, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining item_ids (optional list, default stores all) and the return structure, but does not explain the required thread_id parameter beyond its name.

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 action: store variants into database to get real question IDs. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning the prerequisite verify_variant, though not explicitly comparing with other tools.

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 specifies a prerequisite (verify each variant before storing) and explains default behavior for the item_ids parameter, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives.

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