Submit Assignment

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description explains that the submission is recorded immediately against the deadline, visible to the instructor, and irreversible. This adds significant context about consequences and user confirmation, fully disclosing behavioral traits.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds value, though some phrases could be streamlined. Overall, it is well-structured without fluff.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 params, output schema present), the description covers purpose, side effects, usage prerequisites, and parameter relationships. It is complete for an agent to invoke correctly, especially with the warning to confirm with the user first.

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%, but the description adds crucial cross-parameter meaning: submission_type must match what the assignment allows, and file_ids must reference existing uploaded files. This goes beyond simple type definitions and clarifies constraints.

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 'Submits work to Canvas for an assignment' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_assignment and my_submission by focusing on the submission action and its irreversible nature.

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?

Provides clear context: confirm with user, check formats via get_assignment first, and validates submission_type. It names an alternative tool (get_assignment) but doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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