blackboard_submit_attempt

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable context: the server also asks the user directly through MCP elicitation, and submission finalizes the attempt for grading. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 only three sentences and is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds useful information: what it does, the confirmation requirement, and the alternative for drafts. No filler or 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?

For a destructive action with no output schema, the description adequately covers the main workflow: what is submitted, the confirmation step, and the alternative for saving drafts. It does not explicitly describe the return value or post-submission behavior beyond 'the instructor can grade it,' but given the annotations and schema richness, this is sufficient.

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 input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description doesn't need to repeat them. It does mention 'text, attached files, or both' which maps to studentSubmission and fileUploadIds, adding slight semantic context, but does not explain parameter formats or relationships beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies the action (submit/finalize) and the resource (assignment attempt), and specifies the content types (text, attached files, or both). It also distinguishes this tool from the sibling 'blackboard_save_attempt_draft' by contrasting final submission with saving a draft.

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 instructs the agent to always confirm with the user before submitting, showing exactly what will be sent. It also names the alternative tool for saving progress (blackboard_save_attempt_draft), giving clear when-to-use guidance.

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