set_student_quiz_accommodation

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

Annotations indicate destructive action, and description adds critical behavioral details: partial failures tolerated, fan-out pattern, return structure, and handling of time_limit-less quizzes. These go beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Description is a single paragraph but well-organized, starting with purpose then scope, behavior, returns, and parameter notes. Every sentence adds value, though could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) for readability.

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 (6 params, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: what, when, how, errors, performance, and parameter details. It is fully self-contained for an agent to use 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 has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining parameter interdependencies (mutual exclusivity of time parameters), the formula for extra_time_minutes, and the requirement for real user ID vs pseudonym.

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 applies extra time and/or attempts to a student across Classic Quizzes, with optional quiz subset. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from the sibling tool set_student_new_quiz_accommodation.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use: skips New Quizzes and directs to sibling tool. Mentions re-running after creating new quizzes, and that due-date overrides are separate. Also advises calling resolve_pseudonym if needed.

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