associate_rubric

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without revealing side effects such as overwriting existing associations, implications of use_for_grading (default true), or required permissions. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.

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?

Three short sentences: action, use case, and helper guidance. Each sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 covers the primary purpose and prerequisite workflow, but with 7 parameters and no output schema, it omits behavioral outcomes (e.g., association replacement) and does not clarify optional flags such as hide_points or use_for_grading. It is minimally complete for basic selection but lacks depth.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are well documented. The description adds a useful pointer to list_rubrics for locating rubric_id, which is meaningful extra guidance beyond the schema. No deeper elaboration is needed given the high 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 clearly states the tool's action: associating an existing rubric with one or more assignments. It also provides the use case 'reuse a rubric across multiple assignments,' distinguishing it from rubric creation or editing tools like create_rubric or update_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?

The description gives a clear when-to-use context: 'This is how you reuse a rubric across multiple assignments' and directs users to list_rubrics to find rubric_id. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the context is sufficient relative to sibling tools.

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