academy_quiz_submit

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on important transparency duties. It notes that sign-in is required, that passing a checkpoint issues a certificate, and that output includes per-question correctness and explanations. It does not mention whether submissions are repeatable or whether previous attempts are overridden, but it still provides meaningful behavioral context.

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 compact, front-loads the action, uses an arrow to pipeline into expected results, and adds a prerequisite in a short parenthetical. Every clause adds useful information without bloating the text.

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 does a good job covering outcomes, certificate issuance, and auth, but it is incomplete on input semantics. Since there is no output schema and no parameter guidance, an agent would likely need prior context from sibling tools or conversation to construct valid slug and answers arguments.

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 fails to explain what slug represents or how the answers object should be structured. The word 'answers' name, and the schema only says it is an object with string string values, leaving the mapping between quiz questions and responses ambiguous.

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 clearly identifies a specific action, 'Submit quiz answers', and enumerates what the result includes: score, pass/fail, XP, per-question correctness, and explanations. It is distinct from sibling tools like academy_quiz, which likely fetches quiz content rather than performing submissions.

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 clearly signals when to use this tool: when a user has quiz answers to submit and wants the scored result. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the generic language is unambiguous about the intended use case.

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