Apply Grading Standard to Course

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds behavioral value by explaining that the operation affects the gradebook, that null removes the current grading standard, and that an updated course object is returned. It does not discuss recalculation side effects, but the destructive annotation covers the safety implication.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The purpose, parameter provenance, null handling, and return value each earn their place, and the main action is front-loaded.

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 with a rich schema and destructive annotation, the description is sufficient: it gives the ID source, removal behavior, and return type. Since no output schema exists, 'Returns the updated course object' is an appropriate concise contract.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by telling the agent where grading_standard_id comes from and that null is a valid removal value. The course_id remains schema-only but is self-explanatory.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'apply', the resource 'an existing grading standard to a course', and the intended effect 'so the gradebook uses it.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_grading_standard and list_grading_standards by focusing on the application step, not creation or 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?

Gives explicit usage context: the grading_standard_id should come from create_grading_standard or list_grading_standards, and null removes the current standard. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but this is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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