create_assignment_override

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

The description discloses the destructive nature (creating an override modifies assignment dates) and adds context beyond the `destructiveHint` annotation by detailing the 422 error condition and the need to audit overrides first. It does not explicitly state that existing overrides are overwritten or replaced, but the auditing advice implies it.

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 informative but somewhat lengthy. It front-loads the main purpose and constraints, then adds error handling and pseudonym notes. While every sentence adds value, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) for quicker parsing, but overall it is concise enough.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), the description covers constraints, error conditions, and prerequisite steps (auditing and pseudonym resolution). It misses describing the response format, but since no output schema exists, this is acceptable. The description is fairly complete for a creation tool.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the description still adds significant value: it explains mutual exclusivity among target parameters, the requirement for at least one date field, ISO 8601 format, and the error condition. It also provides real-world usage hints like pseudonym resolution, going beyond the schema's individual 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 tool's purpose: creating due-date/availability overrides for assignments targeting specific students, sections, or groups. It uses a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'update_assignment' and 'list_assignment_overrides' by emphasizing the creation of overrides.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: exactly one target parameter must be provided, at least one date field should be set, and it advises using 'list_assignment_overrides' to avoid 422 errors. It also addresses pseudonym resolution if needed, covering prerequisites and error prevention.

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