blackboard_export_multi_course_grades

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the output is a private CSV, missing grades and zeros are preserved, and no averages or scales are computed — non-obvious data-handling semantics. It stops short of covering file destination, overwrite behavior, or permissions.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every clause carries information (what is produced, what is preserved, what is not computed). It is terse enough that it borders on under-specification rather than waste.

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?

A file-writing tool with no output schema, no parameter documentation, and three parameters where outputDir and allowPartial are unexplained in both schema and description. An agent cannot determine where the CSV is written or how partial results behave from this definition alone.

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 0% for three parameters. The description only loosely maps to courseIds via 'cursos elegidos' and says nothing about outputDir (where the CSV lands) or allowPartial (how partial failures are handled), so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 and resource: saving a CSV of grades for the chosen courses. The plural 'cursos elegidos' implicitly distinguishes it from the single-course export_course_grades and the read-only gradebook getters, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'cursos elegidos' (multiple selected courses), which points at the multi-course export case, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no reference to export_course_grades or get_multi_course_gradebook as alternatives.

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