aeroedu_exam_create

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, consistent with creation, but the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious side effects. It does not disclose potential impacts (e.g., overwriting, permissions, or rate limits) or what happens on success/failure.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) with no filler content. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides key details about question types and LaTeX, making it easily scannable.

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 (8 parameters, nested questions) and lack of output schema, the description covers the main purpose and special features well. However, it omits the return value (e.g., exam ID) and would benefit from briefly explaining how true_false_4 differs from other types.

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 has 100% description coverage, but the tool description adds value by explaining the four question types in natural language and highlighting LaTeX support, which aids understanding beyond schema definitions.

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 creates exams with question lists, specifies four question types (mcq, true_false_4, short_answer, essay), and mentions LaTeX support. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like aeroedu_exam_publish (publishing) and aeroedu_question_create_bulk (creating questions only).

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 usage for creating new exams but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, such as when to publish an exam or create questions separately. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is provided.

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