blackboard_export_course_grades

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint false, openWorldHint true, idempotentHint false, destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable data-handling semantics: preserves zeros, missing cells, separate scale fields, and explicitly does not compute final average. It does not mention overwrite or file naming behavior, but goes beyond annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core action, then data-handling caveats. Every sentence earns its place; 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?

For a 3-parameter export tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers what it does and the output format, but omits parameter guidance and when-to-use context. Adequate but gaps remain.

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 provides a description only for outputDir (33% coverage); courseId and allowPartial are undocumented in both schema and description. The description mentions 'cuenta autenticada' but does not explain courseId pattern or allowPartial behavior, failing to compensate for low 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?

States a specific verb ('Guarda') and resource ('notas publicadas') with output format ('CSV local'). Distinguishes from calculation tools by 'no calcula promedio final', but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like blackboard_export_multi_course_grades or blackboard_get_grades.

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?

No explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative tools are mentioned. Only an implicit context that it exports published grades. Lacks guidance on when to choose this over get_grades or multi-course export.

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