create_peer_review

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

The description confirms a write operation, consistent with the destructiveHint annotation, but adds no additional behavioral context beyond what the annotations already provide. It does not disclose side effects like notifications or constraints, which the openWorldHint suggests may exist.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could include a brief usage hint without becoming verbose.

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?

Despite full schema coverage and annotations, the description is too minimal for a mutation tool with four required parameters. It does not explain what happens after assignment, potential restrictions, or the return value (no output schema). This leaves the agent with incomplete context.

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?

All parameters are documented in the input schema with descriptions, so the schema itself provides full param semantics. The description does not add any extra meaning or relationships between parameters beyond what the schema covers.

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 uses a specific verb ('assign') and a clear resource ('peer-review a submission'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like delete_peer_review and list_peer_reviews by focusing on the creation/assignment action.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., user must be enrolled in the course). It simply states what it does without any usage context.

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