preview_remove_submission

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds context about the specific scope (entire editable submission) and that the deletion is destructive, which is helpful. However, it does not describe what the preview returns or any limitations. No contradiction with annotations exists, but the description adds limited behavioral detail beyond the annotation coverage.

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 extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the core action and scope, and it avoids repetition. It is appropriately sized for its minimal content.

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 has 2 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain the parameters and what the preview shows. It does neither. The tool complexity is moderate (a preview action), but the description is too sparse to allow an agent to invoke it correctly without external knowledge. It leaves critical gaps in usage and expected outputs.

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 provides no explanation of the two parameters (assignment_id and course_module_id). With no schema documentation and no description guidance, the agent has no understanding of what these parameters mean or how to fill them. The description completely fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 verb ('previsualiza' / preview) and the resource ('eliminación destructiva de toda una entrega editable' / destructive deletion of an entire editable submission). It identifies the scope as the entire submission, which distinguishes it from file-level operations like preview_delete_submission_files, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., remove_submission, preview_delete_submission_files). It does not state prerequisites, whether it should precede an actual deletion, or any exclusions. The 'preview' nature implies it is a dry-run, but this is not explicitly articulated.

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