submit_student_mark

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

With no annotations, the description clearly discloses that the tool is a destructive write operation that finalizes the score and cannot be undone. It does not mention permissions or rate limits, but the behavioral impact is well communicated.

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?

Two sentences convey the purpose, prerequisite, and consequence in a front-loaded, efficient manner. No wasted words.

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 is the final step in grading, the description provides all necessary context: prerequisite actions, finality, and the parameters are fully documented in the schema. No output schema is needed as it's a success/failure operation.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter has a description explaining its source. The tool description does not add new information about parameters beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 '提交整卷批阅结果' (submit entire paper grading result), with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'grade_student_question' by indicating it is the final step [批改 4/4].

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?

Explicitly states prerequisite: all manual questions must be graded via 'grade_student_question' before calling. Also warns that success makes the score irreversible ('不可再改'), guiding when to use and not to retry.

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