Create Peer Review

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the simple assignment action. It does not disclose side effects, whether an existing peer review is replaced, or what happens on duplicate assignment—especially important given the destructive hint.

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, focused sentence that is easy to parse and front-loads the core action. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool is simple, has all four required parameters documented, and annotations provide some safety context. However, the description lacks any usage guidance or behavioral detail, leaving it as a minimum-viable definition rather than a fully helpful one.

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?

The schema provides 100% parameter coverage, describing each Canvas ID (user, course, assignment, submission). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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') with a clear resource ('a user to peer-review a submission'), and it is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like delete_peer_review, list_peer_reviews, and get_submission_peer_reviews. It leaves no ambiguity about what action this tool performs.

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 states the action but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_peer_review or list_peer_reviews. There is no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or situations where this tool should be avoided.

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