create_rubric

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

Annotations include destructiveHint:true, so the description's 'Create' is consistent. The description adds a behavioral nuance about optional assignment linking. However, it doesn't disclose what gets destroyed, permission requirements, or whether the rubric can be updated later. The annotation already covers the destructive nature.

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, both essential: the first states the core purpose, the second adds an optional feature. No filler or repetition. The key information 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 tool with no output schema, the description should ideally indicate what is returned (e.g., the created rubric). However, the schema and annotations cover the input well. The description is mostly complete but lacks output information.

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 the schema already explains all parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning by noting the optionality of the association. Baseline 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 clearly states the action ('Create'), the resource ('a new rubric in a course'), and includes the key components ('criteria and rating levels'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_rubric or list_rubrics by specifying creation and optional assignment linking.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to other creation tools like create_assignment. The optional linking hint is weak guidance.

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