post_instructor_answer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the mutating nature ('Post or update') and the authorization requirement ('Requires instructor/TA privileges'). However, it does not explain effects like whether updating overwrites an existing answer, revision semantics, or other side effects, which would be useful behavioral context.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, followed by the privilege requirement. Every word adds value, with no redundant or filler content.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's core purpose and constraints. It explains the action, target, and permission requirement, while relying on the schema for parameter details. Slightly more detail on revision behavior or idempotency would improve completeness, but the schema covers revision semantics.

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 100%, with every parameter (content, revision, anonymous, network_id, post_number) having a description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses specific verbs 'Post or update' and clearly identifies the resource as 'the instructor answer on a Piazza question'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like post_student_answer by specifying 'instructor answer' and instructor/TA privileges, making its unique purpose clear.

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 provides context by stating 'Requires instructor/TA privileges', which implies this tool is for authorized users providing official answers. It does not explicitly name alternatives like post_student_answer, but the privilege mention and 'instructor answer' clearly situate it relative to student-facing tools.

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