delete_peer_reviewRemove a peer review assignment from a submission. This action is permanent.
Remove a peer review assignment from a submission. This action is permanent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes | The Canvas user ID of the reviewer to remove | |
| course_id | Yes | The Canvas course ID | |
| assignment_id | Yes | The Canvas assignment ID | |
| submission_id | Yes | The Canvas submission ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.18.15Input schema / properties / assignment_id / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "pattern": "^[1-9][0-9]{0,18}$",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / assignment_id / typeRemoved value: -"number"Input schema / properties / course_id / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "pattern": "^[1-9][0-9]{0,18}$",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / course_id / typeRemoved value: -"number"Input schema / properties / submission_id / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "pattern": "^[1-9][0-9]{0,18}$",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / submission_id / typeRemoved value: -"number"Input schema / properties / user_id / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "pattern": "^[1-9][0-9]{0,18}$",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / user_id / typeRemoved value: -"number"v1.18.11Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v1.18.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds real value by asserting the effect is permanent/irreversible, which annotations do not state. It says nothing about required permissions, who is affected, or whether the reviewer is notified.
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, zero waste. The action and its target are front-loaded, and the permanence warning earns its place as the second sentence.
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?
Adequate for a simple destructive operation with no output schema and fully documented parameters, but for a permanent deletion it omits what state is destroyed (peer review record vs. review data), permission requirements, and side effects such as notifications.
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 all four required IDs (course, assignment, submission, user) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource with scope: "Remove a peer review assignment from a submission." An agent can distinguish this from create_peer_review, list_peer_reviews, and get_submission_peer_reviews, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. The only steer is the warning that the action is permanent, which is a caution rather than usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.