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

Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, not idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real context beyond them: the source may be archived/prior-year and the result lands as a retargetable draft. It does not restate the retry semantics of requestId, but the added behavioral detail is genuine.

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 filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (it copies into a new draft) is front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained. The description covers the source scope and the resulting artifact's state, which is enough for a two-parameter, well-documented tool; only the relationship to sibling draft-creation tools is left unaddressed.

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%, and both parameters are documented in-schema, including that assignmentId comes from list_coursework. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (copies) and resource (a teacher-owned assignment) and describes the output (a new draft with the same questions and settings). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like create_assignment_draft or restore_assignment_draft, which would be needed for a 5.

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 'including archived or prior-year work' implies when this is appropriate (reusing existing content rather than authoring fresh), but no alternative tool is named and no condition is spelled out as when-to-use vs when-not. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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