Set Student Quiz Accommodation

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

The description discloses the fan-out behavior ('one Canvas API call per quiz'), partial failure tolerance, and the exact structure of the returned envelope (applied/skipped/failed/not_found/summary). These go beyond the annotations, which only indicate destructive/open-world hints, providing essential operational 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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, exclusions, caveats, performance note, failure tolerance, return format, and pseudonym pointer. The description is front-loaded with the core action and progressively adds critical details without repetition.

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 complex fan-out tool with no output schema, the description fully specifies inputs, behavior, and return envelope, including edge cases (missing quizzes, skipped New Quizzes, partial failures). It covers the operational caveats (re-run after creating quizzes, pseudonym resolution) so an agent can invoke it safely.

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?

Although the schema already describes all six parameters (100% coverage), the description adds crucial semantics: the formula for extra_minutes from time_multiplier, the minimum 1-minute rule, the skip behavior for quizzes with no time limit, and the mutual exclusivity between time_multiplier and extra_time_minutes. It also explains the optional quiz_ids to limit scope.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Apply') and resource ('extra time and/or extra attempts to a specific student across all Classic Quizzes'), immediately distinguishing it from New Quizzes and sibling tools. It clearly states the scope (course or subset).

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?

Explicitly names the alternative tool for New Quizzes ('use set_student_new_quiz_accommodation instead'), notes the run-timing caveat ('re-run after creating new quizzes'), and warns that due-date overrides are not handled. It also provides a pseudonymization prerequisite, giving clear when-to-use direction.

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