tool_modify_assignment_dates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a mutation operation (implied by 'Modify'), requires specific permissions ('instructor or TA access'), has a safety mechanism ('confirm_write: Must be True'), and explains update behavior ('Only the provided dates will be changed'). It doesn't mention rate limits or error conditions.

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 perfectly structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by constraints, permissions, then detailed parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted 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?

For a mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, constraints, permissions, and all parameters thoroughly. The output schema presumably handles return values, so the description doesn't need to explain them. It could mention potential side effects more explicitly.

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, but the description fully compensates by explaining all 6 parameters in detail: their purpose, format requirements ('ISO format: YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM'), null behavior ('or None to keep unchanged'), and constraints ('At least one date must be provided'). This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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 ('Modify the dates of an assignment') and identifies the exact resources affected ('release, due, late due'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'tool_rename_assignment' or 'tool_set_extension' which handle different aspects of assignments.

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 it ('Modify the dates of an assignment') and prerequisites ('Requires instructor or TA access'), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for related date operations.

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