reclaim_submission

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the action is a mutating withdrawal but does not state potential side effects, irreversibility, permission requirements, or the specific Google restriction it references. The mention of a restriction without details is insufficient 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 brief and to the point, with two sentences that convey the purpose and a usage condition without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and efficiently structured.

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, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is inadequate. It omits parameter explanations, the nature of the Google restriction, and any operational details, leaving the agent with significant gaps that could lead to incorrect invocation.

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% and the description provides no information about any of the three parameters, including the required coursework_id_or_url. The description does not clarify how account, course_id, or coursework_id_or_url should be used or their meaning beyond what the schema's names imply.

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 action (retira/resolves a submitted submission) and its purpose (to allow modification), using a specific verb and resource. It also equates it with 'Anular entrega', making the function unambiguous. Although it references submit_assignment, it still provides a clear purpose distinct from that sibling.

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?

It explicitly instructs to use only if the user asks ('Úsala solo si el usuario lo pide'), giving a clear condition. However, it relies on a stated restriction 'Misma restricción de Google que submit_assignment' without specifying what that restriction is, leaving the agent to infer or lack critical context about when the tool is valid.

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