academy_review_grade

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool mutates state ('SM-2 interval update') and requires authentication ('Requires sign-in'), which is valuable. But it does not mention whether the action is reversible, what happens on invalid input, or what the response/return value is, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 that packs purpose, grade options, the SM-2 update effect, and the auth requirement. Every word earns its place with no fluff.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description offers a solid baseline: purpose, action, and auth. However, it leaves id semantics and grading behavior underspecified, and does not mention alternatives, making it adequate but not fully complete for an agent selecting this 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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only repeats the enum values ('again/good/easy') already present in the schema. It does not explain what 'id' refers to or how each grade value affects the SM-2 interval, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 action ('Grade a review item'), specifies the exact grade options ('again/good/easy'), and adds the functional context 'SM-2 interval update'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like academy_review, which likely only fetches review items, and academy_quiz_submit, which handles quizzes.

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 provides clear context: this tool grades review items and updates SM-2 intervals, implying it is used after a review item is shown. It also notes the sign-in requirement. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over academy_review or other siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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