tool_create_rubric_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing important behavioral traits: the destructive nature ('WARNING: Changes the rubric for ALL submissions'), weight semantics based on scoring type, and the confirm_write safety mechanism. It doesn't cover rate limits or authentication needs, but provides substantial operational context.

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?

Perfectly structured and front-loaded: purpose statement first, critical warning next, weight semantics explanation, then parameter details. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste. The bullet formatting enhances readability without verbosity.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, 5 parameters, and 0% schema coverage, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, behavioral implications, parameter semantics, and critical warnings. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation, making this description fully adequate for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates excellently by explaining all 5 parameters in the Args section. It adds crucial semantic context beyond schema types: course_id and question_id identify resources, description is the rubric content, weight has scoring-type dependencies, and confirm_write serves as a safety flag. This fully addresses the schema coverage 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 clearly states the specific action ('Create a new rubric item') and resource ('for a question'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like tool_delete_rubric_item and tool_update_rubric_item. It provides precise verb+resource pairing with 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 clear context about when to use this tool (creating rubric items) and includes a critical warning about scope ('Changes the rubric for ALL submissions'), but doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives like tool_update_rubric_item for modifications.

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