Update Assignment

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

Annotations include destructiveHint=true, which signals mutation, but the description does not add behavioral context beyond that. It does not disclose whether updates are partial or full replacement, whether fields are validated, or what happens to unspecified fields. With destructiveHint=true, the description should clarify the mutation semantics, but it only says 'Update an existing assignment'.

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, short sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is appropriately concise and contains no filler. It could arguably include a bit more context, but for its length it is 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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters, destructiveHint=true, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain the effect of partial updates, whether the assignment must exist, or what the response contains. An agent would need to infer behavior from the schema alone, which is insufficient for a mutation tool with destructive implications.

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 the schema already documents all 8 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the full burden. The description does not clarify which parameters are optional or how they interact, but that is not required given full schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing assignment in a course'), which clearly distinguishes it from create_assignment and delete_assignment. It is concise and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate from other update tools like update_course or update_new_quiz.

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 implies usage context: it is for updating an existing assignment, not creating or deleting one. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_assignment or update_new_quiz, nor does it mention prerequisites such as the assignment belonging to the specified course.

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