import_grades_csv

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

With zero annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the critical behavior: 批次覆寫 (batch overwrite), i.e. existing grades/comments are replaced. However it omits permission/auth requirements (the required consentToken is only visible in the schema), partial-failure behavior for the array, and any return-value information.

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 dense sentence with a bracketed category tag up front, so the core purpose is front-loaded and nothing is wasted. It is perhaps slightly under-sized for the operation's weight, but structurally clean.

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 mutating batch tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say more: it is silent on partial-failure semantics, whether values are replaced or merged, and what the caller gets back. It covers the 'what' adequately but not the operational detail an agent needs.

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 every parameter (homeworkId, gradesData, consentToken) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra semantics about formats, limits, or the meaning of the consent token, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb (批次匯入 / batch import) and resource (成績與評語, grades and comments), and ties it to the familiar UI feature 『匯入成績』 on the submitted-list page. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling grading tools, though it never names a sibling to contrast with.

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 UI anchor ('corresponds to the Import Grades function on the submitted list page') implies when to use it, which is helpful context. But it gives no explicit guidance on when NOT to use it versus siblings like audit_homework_submission or ai_assist_grading_feedback, nor any prerequisite context.

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