canvas_submit_grade

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the 'teacher only' permission requirement, which is helpful, but doesn't address other critical aspects like whether this is a destructive/mutative operation (implied by 'submit' but not explicit), rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success/failure. For a grade submission tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('submit a grade for a student's assignment') and includes the permission constraint ('teacher only') without any wasted words. Every part of the description 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error handling, side effects, or important behavioral constraints beyond the basic permission note. Given the complexity of grade submission and the lack of structured data, the description should provide more 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema itself. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about the parameters beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain grade formats beyond 'number or letter grade' which is already in the schema). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the action ('submit a grade') and resource ('for a student's assignment'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'canvas_get_user_grades' or 'canvas_get_submission' beyond the 'submit' verb, which is why it doesn't reach a perfect score.

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 includes 'teacher only' which provides some usage context about permissions, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'canvas_update_assignment' or 'canvas_submit_assignment', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions beyond the role requirement.

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