blackboard_export_submission_receipts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, matching the described write behavior ('Guarda'). The description adds a useful trait — the output is a 'privado' (private) CSV — but says nothing about where the file lands, overwrite behavior, or auth requirements.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the reason other dimensions are under-served.

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 file-export tool with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description is too thin — it omits output location, partial-export behavior, and prerequisites. An agent could guess the basic intent but lacks what it needs to call it correctly.

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% across four parameters, so the description carries the full burden, yet it explains none of them. It implies columnId maps to an 'actividad' (activity), but outputDir and allowPartial are entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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/Saves) and resource (CSV of submission receipts for an activity), and even clarifies scope with 'incluyendo ausencia de comprobante'. However, it never distinguishes itself from the close sibling blackboard_get_submission_receipts, so the agent must infer the export-vs-fetch difference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer this over blackboard_get_submission_receipts, and no explanation of when optional parameters like outputDir or allowPartial matter. The scope note about including missing receipts is the only hint about usage.

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