Submit several of your own grades sequentially, waiting for each receipt before sending the next.
Submit several of YOUR OWN grades sequentially, one at a time, waiting for each receipt. grades: list of {assignment, score, reasoning}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| grades | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses sequential processing and waiting for each receipt, plus the ownership restriction, but it omits mutation side effects, failure handling, permissions, and return behavior.
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 two tight sentences with no wasted text. It front-loads the batch/sequential behavior and then specifies the grades shape.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is significant under-specified. It does not describe the receipt shape, partial failure behavior, error handling, or parameter constraints, leaving the agent unable to know how to interpret results or recover from failures.
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 coverage is 0% and the item schema is unspecified, so the description must compensate. It does name the expected object fields assignment, score, and reasoning, which adds meaning beyond the empty schema, but it does not explain types, score ranges, assignment identifier format, or constraints.
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 states a specific verb and resource: submit several grades in a batch. It also scopes the operation to 'YOUR OWN grades' and distinguishes batch semantics from a single submission, but it does not explicitly name the sibling poa_grade as the alternative.
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 implies when to use the tool by saying it submits several of your own grades sequentially, one at a time, waiting for each receipt. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this versus poa_grade or other sibling tools, and no when-not conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.