Apply Grading Standard to Course

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: applying a standard makes the gradebook use it, and passing null removes the current standard. It also discloses the return value ('Returns the updated course object'), which supplements the annotations even if it doesn't elaborate on permissions or broader side effects.

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 and each one earns its place: what the tool does, how to supply the ID, and the special null behavior plus return value. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no 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 simple two-parameter mutation tool, the description covers the operation, parameter sourcing, removal behavior, and return type. With no output schema, it appropriately states that an updated course object is returned. The combination of annotations, schema, and description is sufficient for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by telling the agent that grading_standard_id should come from create_grading_standard or list_grading_standards, and it reinforces the null-removal semantics already present in the schema. This goes slightly beyond the schema's bare parameter descriptions.

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'), the specific resource, and the intended effect ('so the gradebook uses it'). It also distinguishes itself from related tools like create_grading_standard and list_grading_standards by focusing on application/removal rather than creation/listing.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool, including how to obtain the grading_standard_id and that passing null removes the standard. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to distinguish it from create/list operations.

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