replace_submission_files

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is covered. The description adds the key behavioral detail that it replaces an exact, previously confirmed file set, which clarifies that it overwrites existing files. No contradictions with annotations; the description contributes useful context beyond the bare hints.

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, compact sentence with no redundancy or filler. It front-loads the core action ('Sube y reemplaza') and the key constraint ('exacto previamente confirmado'), maximizing information density in minimal space.

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 destructive operation with four parameters, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, this definition is inadequate. It does not explain return values, failure modes, how to obtain a confirmation token, or the purpose of course_module_id. The description is too sparse to support correct invocation for an agent without prior context.

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%, and the description provides zero explanation of the parameters. The agent must rely solely on parameter names (file_paths, assignment_id, course_module_id, confirmation_token). The description does mention 'file set' which loosely relates to file_paths, but the role of confirmation_token and the optional course_module_id remain unexplained, leaving a significant semantic gap.

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 ('reemplaza' / replaces) and a specific resource ('conjunto de archivos' / file set) with an explicit qualifier ('exacto previamente confirmado' / exact previously confirmed). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like save_online_submission (initial submission) and delete_submission_files (deletion), leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 description implies the tool is used after a confirmation step ('previamente confirmado') but does not explicitly state when to use it versus the preview variant (preview_replace_submission_files) or other submission-related tools. No prerequisites or exclusion conditions are mentioned, so the agent must infer the usage context from the confirmacion_token parameter.

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