grade_submission

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

Annotations already indicate destructive, idempotent, and open-world hints. The description adds the requirement for grading permissions, which is useful context beyond the annotations, but does not further elaborate on side effects or other behaviors.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and includes the permissions note, making it concise and efficient.

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 description does not specify the return value or response structure, which is a gap given no output schema. However, the annotations and schema provide sufficient context for a simple grade operation.

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 input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, achieving the baseline expectation.

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 ('Post or update a grade') and the target resource ('for a submission'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like comment_on_submission or submit_rubric_assessment.

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 mentions 'Requires grading permissions,' which provides context, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gradebook or other grading-related tools.

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