tool_rename_assignment

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 mentions the access requirement and includes a 'confirm_write' parameter as a safety measure, which adds useful context. However, it lacks details on potential side effects (e.g., if renaming affects linked data), rate limits, or error conditions, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by access requirements and parameter details in a clear, bullet-like structure. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly 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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations but an output schema exists, the description covers the essential purpose, access needs, and parameters adequately. However, it could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., confirmation of success/failure outcomes) to fully compensate for the lack of annotations, though the output schema mitigates some gaps.

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. It lists all four parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'The new title for the assignment'), adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema's titles. However, it does not provide format details (e.g., ID formats or title constraints), slightly limiting its utility.

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 ('Rename an assignment') and the platform ('on Gradescope'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'tool_modify_assignment_dates' or 'tool_get_assignment_details'. It uses a precise verb ('rename') and identifies the resource ('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 explicitly states 'Requires instructor or TA access,' providing clear context for when to use this tool based on user permissions. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., compared to 'tool_modify_assignment_dates'), which prevents a perfect score.

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