Turn in a student submission for grading using course, coursework, and submission IDs.
Turn in a student submission for grading.
| 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 provided, the description carries full behavioral burden, but it only states the intent ('for grading') without disclosing that this is a state-changing action, whether it is irreversible, or what grading submission entails. Mutation effects are entirely undisclosed.
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 short sentence with no filler. The verb and object are front-loaded, making it scan instantly.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too terse. It omits post-submission behavior, confirmation of success, potential errors, or any sequencing/requirements, leaving agents to infer critical operational details.
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 every parameter has a basic description, so the schema carries the parameter meaning. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail but does not need to; baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 ('turn in') and resource ('student submission') with the purpose 'for grading', which clearly identifies the action. It is distinguishable from siblings like reclaim_assignment even though no explicit differentiation is stated.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, such as preceding with list_submissions or that reclaim_assignment reverses the operation. No context or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.