Delete Rubric

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value by disclosing what the deletion actually destroys ('removing it from every assignment it is attached to'), the permanence, and that the deleted object is returned — none of which the annotations convey.

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, no filler, with the permanence and cascade consequence front-loaded before the return-value note. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by stating the return value. Combined with full schema coverage and destructive/idempotent annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only permission requirements and failure behavior on ambiguous rubric IDs are absent.

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%: both course_id and rubric_id are documented in the schema with type/allowed-value constraints. The description adds only indirect semantics ('from a course' gestures at course_id) and no format or validation detail, so the baseline of 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 precise verb+resource+scope: permanently delete a rubric from a course. The resource ('rubric') cleanly separates it from the many other delete_* siblings (delete_assignment, delete_discussion, delete_quiz), and the cascade clause adds scope detail beyond the bare name.

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?

Usage is implied by the destructive verb and the stated cascade effect, which tells the agent this is a high-consequence action when a rubric is shared across assignments. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g. attach_rubric or a detach/remove option), and no stated prerequisites.

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