MarathonSetPupilsForModerator

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation, and the description merely restates the assigning action without disclosing whether existing pupil assignments are replaced or merged. It also does not mention authorization requirements, validation behavior, or other side effects consistent with the openWorldHint annotation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler and no repetition of schema or annotation information. Every word contributes to identifying the action.

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 simple three-parameter assignment action, the schema plus description give an agent enough to attempt the call, especially with full parameter descriptions. However, the description omits return behavior, whether the assignment is additive or replacing, and any expectations about which parameters are truly required, so it is only minimally complete.

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 100%, so bodyMarathonId, bodyModeratorId, and bodySelectedPupilsIds already document the IDs involved, meaning the description does not need to carry that burden. The description adds little beyond the mapping implied by the tool name and gives no detail about constraints such as whether the pupil list overwrites a previous list.

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 'Assign pupils to a marathon moderator' uses a specific verb and names both the resource (pupils) and the recipient (moderator), so the operation is immediately clear. It also semantically differentiates this tool from siblings like MarathonSetModeratorsForPupil, which is the reverse direction, and MarathonUnsetPupilsForModerator, which is the removal counterpart.

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?

The description gives no guidance about when to prefer this tool over closely related siblings. There is no mention of when to use this versus MarathonSetModeratorsForPupil or MarathonUnsetPupilsForModerator, nor any prerequisites or conditions that should hold before invoking it.

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