Attach Rubric

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a mutating, externally-visible write. The description adds the return value ('the new rubric association') but does not disclose what a destructive attach overwrites (e.g. an existing rubric association) or any permission requirement, leaving a meaningful behavioral gap against the annotation bar.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste: the primary action is front-loaded and the routing rationale plus return value follow. Nothing extraneous.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly states the return ('the new rubric association'), and it covers the sharing rationale for a 6-param mutation. It stops short of noting permissions or the destructive overwrite behavior implied by the annotations.

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 all six parameters are already fully documented in the schema, including purpose, use_for_grading, and hide_score_total. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (attach), resource (existing course rubric), and target (assignment), and explicitly frames the distinction from create_rubric. An agent can immediately tell it apart from create_rubric and delete_rubric without opening a schema.

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?

Names the alternative (create_rubric) and the condition that selects this tool over it (sharing one rubric across many assignments instead of duplicating). It does not, however, state prerequisites such as required permissions or whether the rubric must already exist in the course beyond the word 'existing'.

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