set_question_grading

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that the tool mutates grading-related fields; it does not disclose whether existing grading is overwritten, whether the question must already exist, whether feedback can be cleared by setting null, or any other side effects.

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 no filler. Every phrase conveys a distinct piece of information relevant to selecting and invoking the tool.

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 description covers the core operation and all substantive parameters, and the presence of an output schema means return-value details are unnecessary. However, with no annotations and no schema field descriptions, it lacks behavioral depth and any guidance on prerequisites or alternatives, leaving it only minimally complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful meaning by mapping pointValue to 'quiz points', correctAnswers to 'answer key', and whenRight/whenWrong to 'right/wrong feedback'. However, formId and itemIndex are not glossed, and the exact shape of the answer key is left to 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 uses a specific verb ('set') and resource ('question item'), and enumerates exactly what is configured: quiz points, answer key, and right/wrong feedback. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_question/delete_item and form-level settings tools.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only contextual clue is the phrase 'for a question item', which implies it applies to an existing item but does not explicitly say so.

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