admin_inject_grade

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool records a grade and timestamp, but does not disclose whether it overwrites existing grades, whether it is idempotent, what response is returned, or any side effects. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and 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?

The tool is simple with two documented parameters and no output schema, so the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks information about return values, whether the operation is an insert or update, and possible score constraints, leaving some ambiguity for an admin tool.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions ('Score to assign' and 'ID of the inject'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable but not additive.

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 uses a specific verb 'Record' with a clear resource 'inject grade and timestamp', and adds an access restriction 'White team only'. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like inject_submit, so slightly less than a perfect score.

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 phrase 'White team only' provides some usage context, implying this is an administrative/grading action rather than a participant submission. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., inject_submit for submissions), and no mention of prerequisites or conditions beyond the role restriction.

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