Set Student New Quiz Accommodation

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, openWorldHint), the description discloses critical behaviors: partial per-quiz failures are tolerated, fan-out is sequential, course-level errors propagate without an envelope, and the return envelope structure (scope, applied[], failed[], summary). This is rich, honest context.

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 dense but every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, mode distinction, quiz-type guidance, error handling, envelope details, pseudonym note. It is front-loaded with the primary action and uses no filler 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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 params, no output schema, destructive annotations), the description is comprehensive. It explains the return envelope despite no output schema, covers error handling for both modes, and addresses the pseudonymization context, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

While schema coverage is 100%, the description adds essential semantics absent from the schema: time_multiplier is a ratio (1.5 = 1.5x), not absolute minutes; assignment_ids behavior (omit for course-level, one call per assignment); and extra_attempts as 'additional attempts beyond default.' This adds clear value beyond property descriptions.

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: 'Apply a time and/or attempts accommodation for a student across all New Quizzes in a course' and distinguishes between course-level and per-quiz modes. It also explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool set_student_quiz_accommodation for Classic Quizzes.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: use this for New Quizzes, and 'For Classic Quizzes ... use set_student_quiz_accommodation instead.' It also explains the two usage modes (with/without assignment_ids) and the prerequisite to call resolve_pseudonym if CANVAS_PSEUDONYMIZE_STUDENTS is enabled.

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