assign_homework

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the critical default side-effect (preview only, no save) and the practical workflow of 'call again with confirm: true', deliberately preventing accidental writes. It omits details like reversibility, permissions, or preview output content, but the core safety behavior is well covered.

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 three concise sentences, with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. Each sentence earns its place: purpose, behavioral/workflow warning, and prerequisite.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: action, default side-effect (preview), confirmation requirement, and prerequisite. The only major gap is the content or format of the preview response, which is not specified, but for a straightforward create-with-preview tool the coverage is nearly complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description restates the confirm workflow and the list_students dependency, both of which are already present in the schema's parameter descriptions, so it adds little meaning beyond what the structured schema already conveys.

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 first sentence uses a specific verb ('assign'), concrete resources ('homework item', 'student'), and is clearly distinct from list_students, get_student_progress, log_session_note, and generate_progress_report. It names the exact operation and target, leaving no ambiguity.

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 an explicit precondition: 'Use list_students first if you don't know the student_id.' It also communicates the intended two-step preview-and-confirm flow. It lacks explicit exclusion language for sibling tools, but the purpose differentiation makes those exclusions unnecessary.

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