Rejects a student's homework submission with a specific reason, notifying them to resubmit their work.
【助教特殊功能：退回重寫】將指定學生的繳交作業退回要求重寫（對應批改頁『退回重寫』按鈕）。學生將收到通知並可重新上傳作答檔案。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | Yes | 退回重寫之具體原因與修改建議（例如：檔案損毀無法讀取、或未附題目要求之附錄） | |
| reportId | Yes | 欲退回之繳交紀錄 ID (reportId) | |
| consentToken | No | 單次許可權杖（若已有或透過 request_action_consent 取得） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the student will be notified and can re-upload the answer file, which is meaningful side-effect context, but it does not explain permission requirements, the role of consentToken, or whether the rejection is reversible.
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 two tightly written sentences with the core action front-loaded and no wasted text. The parenthetical button reference is helpful context rather than filler.
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?
The tool is a mutation with no annotations and no output schema, so the description should ideally cover authorization and consent behavior. It does cover the student-facing consequence, but the absence of any mention of consentToken or permission requirements leaves an operational gap for the agent.
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 reportId, reason, and consentToken are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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: returning a student's submitted homework for rewrite, and ties it to the grading-page 'return for rewrite' button. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish this action from sibling tools such as audit_homework_submission or ai_assist_grading_feedback.
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 phrase '助教特殊功能' and the mapping to the grading-page button imply when the tool is used, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives. An agent can infer the context but must still decide on its own when this is preferable to auditing or feedback tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.