blackboard_save_attempt_draft

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

Annotations already signal write behavior (readOnlyHint=false), but the description adds valuable context: the attempt remains open with status InProgress and no submission occurs. This clarifies the draft behavior beyond mere flags.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by clarifying exclusions. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so return values are not needed. The description explains core behavior, state implications, and the exclusion of submission, which is sufficient for a draft-save tool. Slight gaps exist around failure conditions but are not critical for this operation.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented. The description adds a high-level mapping ('text, attached files, or both') but does not go beyond the schema's existing parameter explanations, matching the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 tool saves progress on an assignment attempt without submitting it, specifying text, attached files, or both. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling submit tool, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit when-not guidance: 'This does NOT send it to the instructor for grading' and directly names the alternative tool for submission (blackboard_submit_attempt). It also adds a user confirmation requirement for that alternative.

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