post_student_answer

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It adds the useful context that the student answer is a collaborative wiki-style entry editable by any student, which implies updatability. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing answers), permission requirements, or error behavior, limiting transparency for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a relevant explanatory note. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or excessive length.

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 simplicity, the description plus schema adequately cover how to invoke it: the action, the revision parameter for edits, and the collaborative nature of the answer. The absence of an output schema is not a concern for this mutation tool. Lacks a few safety details but is reasonably complete for the task.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not add further parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already conveys, such as the revision number semantics.

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 function: posting or updating a student answer on a Piazza question. It specifies the target resource (student answer) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like `post_instructor_answer`, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 implies when to use the tool (for student answers on Piazza), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as `create_reply` or `post_instructor_answer`. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving room for ambiguity in tool selection.

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