aula_assign_submit

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false) by disclosing that `archivos` is a final replacing list, that omission preserves existing values, that submission is generally irreversible once sent, that a declaration may need acceptance, and that the user must confirm beforehand. This matches and enriches the destructive/irreversible semantics declared in the annotations.

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?

Front-loads the core action followed by prerequisites, replacement semantics, and the confirmation requirement — every paragraph carries distinct information. It is somewhat long and drifts into fluent narrative, but no sentence is filler.

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 destructive write tool with no output schema it covers prerequisites, irreversibility, replacement semantics, and the confirmation protocol. Return value is only gestured at ('Devuelve cómo quedó la entrega'), which is the one remaining gap, though acceptable given the complexity covered elsewhere.

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%, so the per-parameter meanings are already documented, but the description adds cross-parameter semantics the schema cannot express: empty `archivos` removes all files, existing files must be re-listed by `url` to be preserved, and omitting `texto`/`archivos` leaves prior values. That is meaningful value beyond the schema.

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 and resource — submitting an assignment in the virtual classroom — and explains that it can upload files, write inline text, or both depending on what the task accepts. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like aula_open (inspection) and aula_read_file.

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?

Explicitly requires calling aula_open first to read `entrega` (accepted types, size, puedeEditar, existing uploads) before submitting. It also spells out the draft vs. non-draft branch, the `enviar: false` alternative, and the human-confirmation step, so the agent knows exactly when and how to invoke it.

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