Requests a UI consent token before high-risk actions such as deleting homework, exams, or bulletins, broadcasting email, or batch importing scores. Use it to authorize destructive operations.
申請高危險性操作（刪除作業/刪除測驗/刪除公告/廣播全體郵件/批次成績匯入）之使用者 UI 許可權杖 (Consent Token)。在進行破壞性操作前必須調用此工具取得授權權杖。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | 要申請授權的高危險動作名稱 | |
| reason | Yes | 執行此操作的業務理由或說明 | |
| targetId | Yes | 目標 ID（如作業 ID、測驗 ID、公告 ID） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the call yields a Consent Token and that the flow is UI-facing (implying user interaction/approval), which is real context beyond the schema. It does not state what happens if the user declines, whether the token expires, or whether the call blocks — notable gaps for a mandatory gating tool.
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?
Two sentences, zero waste: the first defines scope and enumerates actions, the second states the mandatory precondition. The critical usage constraint is front-loaded and easy to scan.
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?
There is no output schema, yet the description never explains what the returned token is, how long it lives, or how it must be passed to the subsequent destructive tool (e.g. delete_homework). For a gating tool in a multi-step consent flow, that handoff is the single most important missing piece.
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% with per-parameter descriptions and an action enum, so the baseline is 3. The description's action list mirrors the enum values (delete_homework, delete_exam, delete_bulletin, broadcast_email, batch_import_scores) but adds no semantics about targetId format, reason expectations, or how targetId relates to action type.
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+resource: applying for a UI Consent Token for enumerated high-risk actions, and lists the concrete action types (delete homework/exam/bulletin, broadcast email, batch import). However, it does not differentiate itself from the near-identical sibling request_action_consent or from list_granted_consents, leaving the agent unsure which consent tool to pick.
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?
"在進行破壞性操作前必須調用此工具取得授權權杖" gives an explicit, mandatory trigger condition tied to destructive operations. It lacks any when-not guidance or pointer to request_action_consent as an alternative path, so the routing between the two consent tools is unresolved.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.