uplus_answer_homework

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important behavioral trait: submission is refused while any question is unanswered or failed unless force_submit=True. It omits other consequential behavior, such as whether answers persist if submit=false, whether partial failures are reported, and whether prior inspection of the homework is required.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the remainder is dense, non-redundant detail about the answers map and the submit guard. Slightly terse on the identifier parameters, but every sentence earns its place.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and a nested object, the description covers the answer format and the submit guard but leaves gaps: where task_id/course_id originate, what the tool returns, and what happens to answers when submit=false. It is adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain the hardest parameter well: `answers` keys are question_id or question order as a string, with values as a letter, sorted letter group, true/false, or blank text. However, task_id, course_id, and submit are never explained, and force_submit is only referenced in passing.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Fill objective questions") and clarifies that submission is optional via a separate step. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from siblings like uplus_inspect_homework or uplus_list_homeworks, which an agent will need to sequence before calling it.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool answers questions and optionally submits, and the refusal rule hints that answers must be complete first. There is no explicit statement of prerequisites (login, obtaining task_id/course_id from uplus_list_homeworks) or of when to prefer submitting later versus atomically here.

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