preview_submit_assignment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond this: 'nunca bloquea ni entrega el borrador' (never blocks or delivers the draft) and 'para calificación' (for grading). This clarifies that the operation is non-committal and safe, which is useful for the agent. No contradiction with annotations.

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 that front-loads the purpose ('Previsualiza el envío para calificación') and immediately communicates the key constraint ('nunca bloquea ni entrega el borrador'). No extraneous 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?

The tool has no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and the description does not explain what the preview returns, what each parameter does, or when to use this tool among the many preview_* siblings. Given the minimal guidance, the description is incomplete for an agent to correctly call this tool with the right arguments and interpret the result.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (assignment_id, course_module_id, accept_submission_statement). The description mentions 'envío' but does not clarify the meaning or purpose of these arguments. Since the description carries the sole burden of parameter semantics, this is a major gap.

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 uses the verb 'Previsualiza' (previews) and specifies the resource 'el envío para calificación' (the submission for grading). It clearly differentiates from the actual submission tool by stating 'nunca bloquea ni entrega el borrador' (never blocks or delivers the draft), making its purpose distinct from siblings like submit_assignment.

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 does not explicitly name an alternative tool or provide when-to-use/when-not-to-use conditions. It implies preview usage via 'nunca bloquea ni entrega el borrador' but does not direct the agent to use this before submitting via submit_assignment, nor does it mention other preview tools. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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