Reset What If Grades

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

Annotations already declare this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false), not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds useful scope: 'Only affects your own view,' which clarifies that this does not alter official grades. It does not explain whether the reset is reversible or requires confirmation.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the outcome and scope. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and an important scope constraint. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying whether clearing is immediate or reversible, but nothing critical is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the single course_id parameter is fully documented in the schema with format and source guidance. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Clear every what-if score you entered in a course.' It also explains the outcome: Canvas shows real grades again. It distinguishes itself implicitly from the sibling what_if_grade tool by being the reset operation, but it does not explicitly name the sibling.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'so Canvas shows your real grades again,' suggesting the tool is for restoring the real grade view. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative such as what_if_grade.

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