check_submission_reopen

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds the useful behavioral note about never using teacher privileges, which goes slightly beyond the annotations, but does not describe other traits like output format or side effects. Given the annotations carry most of the burden, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 a single, concise sentence with no waste. It front-loads the core behavior and adds the privilege constraint, making it easy to read and understand quickly.

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?

While the tool is a simple read-only check and annotations provide safety context, the description lacks parameter semantics, usage guidance, and any mention of what the result represents. For an agent to call it correctly, it needs to know what parameters to pass and how to interpret the response, which are absent.

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% and the description does not mention either parameter (assignment_id or course_module_id). The schema only provides type information and a title, so the description must compensate but fails to explain what the parameters mean or how they relate to the check.

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 the tool 'checks whether the student can continue editing', which is a specific verb and resource. It also adds a key distinction by noting it never uses teacher privileges. While it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, the purpose is unambiguous and easy to map to the tool's name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_submission_status or preview_submit_assignment. The description does not provide context about typical scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when this check is appropriate.

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