blackboard_save_attempt_draft

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that the attempt remains open (status InProgress) and that the tool does NOT send to the instructor. It could add more detail about edge cases (e.g., whether an attempt must already exist), but the core behavioral traits are well covered.

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 most important distinction (save without submitting), and every sentence adds value. It is concise, well-structured, and free of filler.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what happens, what doesn't happen, and how it differs from the submission tool. It lacks details about return values or failure cases (e.g., what if no attempt exists), but overall it is sufficiently complete for a straightforward save 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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameter meanings. The tool description adds only a high-level mapping ('text, attached files, or both') but does not deepen parameter semantics. This matches the baseline score of 3 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, and distinguishes it from the sibling blackboard_submit_attempt. It specifies the action (save progress), resource (assignment attempt), and the key differentiator (WITHOUT submitting, stays InProgress).

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool (to save a draft) and when not to (do not use for final submission). Names the alternative tool (blackboard_submit_attempt) and even includes a caution to confirm with the user before calling that one. This is excellent guidance.

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