Deletes a student’s specific exam attempt record so they can retake the test after disconnection or an abnormal incident; requires a consent token.
【助教特殊功能：刪除學生測驗紀錄允許重考】當學生因斷線或異常情況需要重考時，助教可刪除該名學生的特定一次作答紀錄（對應作答名單 a.js-delete 動作），釋放其測驗資格。需攜帶 UI 許可權杖。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| examId | Yes | 測驗 ID | |
| recordId | Yes | 欲刪除之作答紀錄 ID (recordID) | |
| studentId | Yes | 學生學號 | |
| consentToken | Yes | UI 許可權杖 (X-Consent-Token) |
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 and does disclose that this is a deletion that releases exam eligibility and requires a UI consent token. It does not state whether the deletion is irreversible, what happens to associated grading data, or any permission/authorization nuance beyond the TA role.
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 with a bracketed feature label followed by the rationale and consent requirement. It is efficiently sized, though the opening clause and the later phrase about releasing exam eligibility slightly restate the same idea.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scenario, and consent token requirement. It is still missing contextual detail such as irreversibility, expected return behavior, or how to obtain the recordId (for example via get_exam_record_detail).
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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds modest context by tying the action to a specific attempt and a UI permission token, but it does not add syntax, format, or source details 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?
The description states a specific verb (刪除), resource (學生測驗紀錄/作答紀錄), and scope (特定一次) while naming the operational goal of allowing a retake. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_exam, which deletes an entire exam rather than a single student's attempt.
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 clear triggering condition: when a student needs a retake due to disconnection or an abnormal situation, a TA may delete that student's specific attempt. It does not, however, name explicit alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a full routing guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.