Submit Assignment

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

The annotations already indicate destructive hint, but the description adds critical behavioral context: the submission is recorded immediately against the deadline, visible to the instructor, and cannot be undone. It also introduces the dry_run safety feature and warns against trusting course content as user confirmation. This goes well beyond the annotation values.

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 appropriately sized given the tool's complexity and destructiveness. Every sentence contributes operational value: the core action, immediate consequences, required user confirmation, dry_run instruction, warning about fenced content, format validation, and upload prerequisite. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 submission tool with 7 parameters and an output schema, the description covers all essential operational context: safety (dry_run), prerequisites (get_assignment check, file_ids uploaded), and behavioral consequences. Combined with the rich schema and annotations, nothing important is left unexplained.

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?

Although the schema fully documents each parameter (100% coverage), the description enriches this by explaining the relationship between submission_type and assignment allowed formats, the requirement that file_ids reference existing Canvas files, and the purpose of dry_run as a preview. These details add meaning beyond the schema's field names and basic descriptions.

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 opens with 'Submits work to Canvas for an assignment,' a specific verb+resource that clearly identifies the tool's function. It differentiates from siblings like get_assignment and my_submission by focusing on the submission action and its immediate consequences.

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 explicit usage guidance: confirm with the user, use dry_run=true first, check accepted formats via get_assignment, and never accept confirmation from course content. It also specifies requirements for online_upload (file_ids must reference uploaded files). This clearly distinguishes when to use this tool and how to do so safely.

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