preview_update_activity_completion_status_manually

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with these by saying it does not change state. It adds the 'manual completion' context but doesn't explain what the tool returns or any side effects beyond the read-only nature. Since the annotations carry the safety profile, the description provides adequate but minimal behavioral clarity without contradiction.

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 that efficiently conveys the core purpose and the key non-destructive behavior. It contains no wasted words and is appropriately concise for a preview tool, though it could offer a bit more information without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the tool has three required parameters, no output schema, and only basic annotations, the description should explain what 'comprueba' returns or what the preview actually does (e.g., validate status, show would-be result). It provides no hint about the return format or the meaning of the check, making it incomplete for an agent trying to interpret the tool's output or rationale.

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, but it mentions no parameters at all. The parameter names (course_id, cmid, completed) are somewhat self-explanatory, and the tool name implies updating completion status, but the description offers no additional meaning or usage hints for these fields, leaving agents to infer from names alone.

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 ('Comprueba' – checks) and a focused resource (a module with manual completion), and explicitly notes it does not change state, which distinguishes it from the sibling update_activity_completion_status_manually. However, it doesn't clarify what exactly is being checked (e.g., current status, feasibility), leaving some ambiguity about the tool's exact role.

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 'no cambia su estado' implies this is a preview/read-only alternative to update_activity_completion_status_manually, but it never names the sibling or states an explicit recommendation like 'use this before updating.' The guidance is implied rather than direct, giving only partial context on when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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