tool_delete_rubric_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the destructive nature ('WARNING: Removes the item from ALL submissions and recalculates scores'), which is crucial for a mutation tool. It also mentions the 'confirm_write' parameter as a safety measure, adding context beyond basic functionality.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose and critical warning, followed by a clear parameter list. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (destructive mutation) and lack of annotations, the description does a good job covering purpose, impact, and parameters. Since an output schema exists, it need not explain return values. However, it could benefit from more details on prerequisites or error conditions.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all four parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'The Gradescope course ID'), which adds meaning beyond the schema's titles. However, it does not provide detailed semantics like format examples or constraints, leaving some gaps.

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 ('Delete a rubric item from a question'), identifies the resource ('rubric item'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'tool_create_rubric_item' and 'tool_update_rubric_item' by specifying deletion rather than creation or modification.

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 for when to use this tool (to delete a rubric item) and includes a warning about the impact ('Removes the item from ALL submissions and recalculates scores'), which helps guide usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings.

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