Duplicate an existing exam's questions and grading settings, then create a new exam with updated start and end times.
【助教特殊功能：複製既有測驗】複製現有測驗題目與評分設定（對應測驗列表『複製』按鈕），快速建立新測驗並重設測驗時間區間。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| newTitle | Yes | 新測驗標題 | |
| newEndTime | Yes | 結束時間（YYYY-MM-DD HH:mm） | |
| newStartTime | Yes | 開始時間（YYYY-MM-DD HH:mm） | |
| sourceExamId | Yes | 來源測驗 ID（例如 8633） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses what gets carried over (questions, grading settings) and that the time window is reset for the new exam — implying the source exam is left untouched. However it never states permission requirements, whether student attempts/submissions are copied or dropped, or whether the copy is immediately published.
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?
A single compact sentence with the function tag front-loaded and the core action stated first, followed by what is copied. No filler, though the bracketed Chinese label duplicates information already available to the agent.
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 four-required-parameter copy operation with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is duplicated and what is reset. The main omission is what the call returns (presumably a new exam ID), which the agent would need to chain follow-up calls.
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 100%, with all four parameters individually documented including ID example and time format, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the framing that the new exam gets a fresh time interval, which loosely maps to newStartTime/newEndTime but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the 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?
States a specific verb and resource (copy an existing exam) and enumerates what is duplicated: questions and grading settings. It also names the UI affordance it maps to (the 'copy' button in the exam list). It stops short of naming a sibling like create/delete_exam for differentiation, but the resource is unambiguous.
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 parenthetical '(corresponds to the copy button in the exam list)' gives the agent a concrete situational cue for when to reach for this tool, and 'helping TA feature' frames the actor. There are no explicit when-not conditions or comparison to copy_homework, but the usage context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.