submit_assignment

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint: true and idempotentHint: false, which cover the finality of the action. The description adds little beyond that, only mentioning the draft is 'previously reviewed and confirmed'. It does not disclose side effects, irreversibility beyond what annotations imply, or any additional behavioral context. Since annotations carry most of the burden, the description provides marginal extra value.

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, but it is under-specified. It earns its place for brevity but sacrifices essential information. Structure is acceptable, but the length is not appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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's complexity (4 parameters, 2 required, destructive, no output schema), the description is woefully inadequate. It does not mention the confirmation token requirement, the accept statement, or any consequences of submission. An agent cannot reliably use this tool based on the description alone. The presence of preview_submit_assignment as a sibling also suggests a workflow that is not addressed.

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 the description must compensate by explaining parameter meaning. It does not. It fails to clarify what confirmation_token represents, what accept_submission_statement does, or how assignment_id and course_module_id are used. This is a serious gap for a tool with 4 parameters, making it impossible for the agent to understand the invocation requirements.

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 states a specific action: submitting a previously reviewed and confirmed draft for grading. It clearly identifies the verb and resource (assignment submission) and implicitly distinguishes from preview_submit_assignment by requiring the draft to be 'reviewed and confirmed'. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative, so it's not a 5.

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 implies the tool should only be used after reviewing and confirming the draft, but it does not explicitly state to use preview_submit_assignment first or provide any exclusions. It offers no guidance on when not to use this tool or how it relates to other submission-related siblings like save_online_submission.

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