Submit Rubric Assessment

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

With annotations already declaring destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond restating the action. It does not explain what happens to existing assessments or any side effects of submission, but it does not contradict the annotations either.

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 clear sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no redundant words.

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 tool has moderate complexity with three required parameters including a nested array, and no output schema. The description omits information about return values, side effects, or whether submission overwrites prior assessments. While annotations and schema cover safety and parameters, the description could be richer for a destructive 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 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description reinforces that data contains scores and comments per criterion but adds no new semantic detail beyond 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?

The description clearly states the action 'Submit' and the resource 'rubric assessment', specifying it involves 'scores and comments for each criterion.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_rubric_assessment, which retrieves rather than submits.

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 like get_rubric_assessment or other grading tools. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and schema.

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