submit_grades

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses that tool should be called once at end of session, not incrementally. Explains grade meanings and error_note requirement. Lacks details on idempotency or side effects, but appropriate for a simple write tool.

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 succinct sentences with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, timing/scope, grade definitions, error_note instruction. 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?

Given one parameter with nested structure and existence of output schema (not shown), description covers timing, grade meaning, and error_note usage. The output schema likely covers return values. Could mention idempotency or duplicate handling, but adequate for a submission tool.

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 0%, so description must compensate. Explains that grades array covers every item observed, defines grade values (1-4), and specifies when to include error_note. Does not describe item_id format, but context is clear.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Record' and resource 'learner performance on items during a review'. Differentiates from sibling tools (add_item, get_item, etc.) which serve different purposes.

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 says 'Call this at the END of a review session, once, with every item you observed', providing clear timing and scope. Does not mention alternatives but no similar siblings exist.

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