Reclaim a student's turned-in submission to unsubmit it, using course, coursework, and submission IDs.
Reclaim a turned-in student submission (unsubmit).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| courseId | Yes | The course ID. | |
| courseWorkId | Yes | The coursework ID. | |
| submissionId | Yes | The submission ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without explaining side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or what happens if the submission is not in a turned-in state.
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?
A single, tightly worded sentence with no filler. The verb and key qualifier are front-loaded, making the description immediately actionable.
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 simple tool with three String ID parameters and no output schema, the description provides the core action. However, it lacks behavioral safeguards such as prerequisites, failure states, or consequences, which are especially important given the lack of annotations.
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%, with each parameter simply described as 'The X ID.' The description itself contributes no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies because the schema already documents all three parameters.
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 'reclaim' and clear resource 'turned-in student submission', with the parenthetical 'unsubmit' removing any ambiguity. This plainly contrasts with the sibling tool turn_in_assignment, which performs the opposite action.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Although the sibling list includes turn_in_assignment, the description does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions that would help an agent decide between them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.