submit_rubric_assessment

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as whether the submission creates or updates an assessment, or what side effects occur. It provides minimal added value beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence of 9 words with no fluff. It efficiently conveys the tool's core action and components.

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 the tool has 3 required parameters, no output schema, and annotations indicating destructive and idempotent behavior, the description is functional but not fully complete. It fails to mention prerequisites (e.g., existing rubric association) or success/failure feedback, which an agent might need.

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%, and the input schema provides detailed descriptions for all parameters. The description merely echoes 'scores and comments' but does not add new semantic meaning 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 uses specific verbs and nouns: 'submit a rubric assessment' with 'scores and comments for each criterion.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_rubric_assessment (retrieve) or create_rubric (create rubric).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as grade_submission or comment_on_submission. The description only states what the tool does, not the context or conditions for its use.

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