Execute reviewed school effects

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, openWorld=true, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: validation/hash-checking happens before the first request and execution stops on first failure with no retry, rollback, or implicit continuation. This partial-failure, non-transactional semantics is exactly what an agent needs and is not derivable from the annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core scope ('Confirmed ordered effects') and then the failure contract. Every clause carries load with no filler, appropriate for a high-risk batch tool.

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 destructive 20-item batch tool with no output schema, key gaps remain: the shape and meaning of the returned 'receipts' (known vs unattempted) is unspecified, and routing to preview_school_batch is absent. Validation and failure behavior are well covered, so it is adequate but not 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 coverage is 75%: tasks, account and confirm each carry schema descriptions, while review_sha256 is only a pattern. The description adds meaning to review_sha256 ('all validated/hash checked before first request') but does not explain the hashing or how the hash is produced. Near the baseline 3 for a well-documented schema.

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 conveys that this executes a batch of previously confirmed, validated effects ('all validated/hash checked before first request'), which pairs with the name submit_school_batch and the title's 'Execute'. However it never states the verb itself and does nothing to distinguish it from the sibling preview_school_batch, so an agent must open both to tell them apart.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement. The obvious alternative, preview_school_batch, is never mentioned even though the entire description implies this is the post-review execution step; the agent is left to infer that it should preview first. Only 'Confirmed' hints at a prerequisite.

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