Create Rubric

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, consistent with a create). The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: it documents the return shape ({ rubric, rubric_association? }) and explains that rubric_association.id is the association_id consumed by submit_rubric_assessment, enabling correct chaining. It omits permission/auth requirements, so not a 5.

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?

Three tight, front-loaded sentences with zero filler: the action, the optional linking behavior, then the return contract. Every clause earns its place by either describing behavior or enabling downstream chaining.

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 nested criteria/ratings objects, four parameters, and no output schema, the description does the necessary work by describing the return payload and the association linkage. It stops short of documenting authorization or course-state prerequisites, leaving a small gap for a mutating, open-world 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents title, criteria, ratings, and association fields. The description adds meaning above the schema by tying the nested association output back to submit_rubric_assessment's association_id, a workflow-level semantic not present in the schema.

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+resource ("Create a new rubric in a course") with the composed entity (criteria and rating levels), which separates it from the read/delete rubric siblings. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from attach_rubric, the closest overlapping sibling, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 notes the association can be linked "immediately" and otherwise is optional, which implies usage context. However, it never states when to use this versus attach_rubric or whether a course must already exist, leaving the agent to infer alternatives.

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