apply_grading_standard_to_course

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint: true, so the description is not required to repeat that. The description adds value by explaining that passing null removes the standard and that the tool returns the updated course object. This is sufficient for behavioral clarity beyond annotations.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the purpose, then provides parameter guidance, and ends with return value. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter usage, and return value. It does not mention error cases or permissions, but given the low complexity, it is nearly complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context by telling users to pass the grading_standard_id from specific sibling tools and explains the null behavior in practical terms, which goes slightly beyond the schema description.

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: 'Apply an existing grading standard to a course so the gradebook uses it.' It names the verb ('apply'), resource ('grading standard'), and target ('course'), and distinguishes from siblings by referencing create_grading_standard and list_grading_standards as sources for the ID.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool: to apply a grading standard using its ID, or to remove it by passing null. It also tells the agent where to obtain the ID (from create_grading_standard or list_grading_standards). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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