delete_exam

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a hard server-side guard and a required consent token. However, it never states that the deletion is irreversible or what the blocked-invocation response looks like — significant omissions for an unannotated destructive operation.

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?

Three short sentences with the safety constraint front-loaded ahead of the credential requirement, which is the right ordering for a destructive tool. The emphasis formatting is heavy but every sentence carries information.

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, unannotated tool with no output schema, the critical guard is present, but irreversibility, effect on student records, and failure behavior are not described. Enough to call it safely in the happy path, not enough for full confidence.

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 100% and both parameters (examId, consentToken) are already documented there, including the X-Consent-Token mapping. The description's mention of the token merely repeats the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('刪除測驗') plus the precondition attached to it, so there is no ambiguity about what the tool does. It does not explicitly contrast itself with nearby siblings such as copy_exam or delete_student_exam_attempt, so the sibling-differentiation element is missing.

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?

It gives a concrete when-not rule: deletion is blocked when testedCount > 0, which tells the agent exactly when the call will fail. It does not redirect the agent to the alternative (delete_student_exam_attempt) when students have in fact attempted the exam, so the guidance stops just short of full routing.

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