copy_rubric

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels. It discloses the copy behavior, field inheritance for display toggles, default target course, and the important caveat that outcome-linked criteria may be stripped if the outcome is unavailable in the target course. This goes well beyond a generic 'duplicates a rubric' statement.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds meaningful detail. There is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 a moderate complexity (8 params, no output schema) and the description covers the central behaviors, options, and a notable edge case. It does not describe the return value or error behavior, but given the schema richness and lack of output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that display toggles are inherited from the source's primary association unless overridden, which enriches the meaning of the three hide_* boolean parameters. It also clarifies the default behavior of target_course_id and new_title, though the schema already documents these.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Duplicate an existing rubric.' It clearly enumerates what is copied (title, criteria, ratings, long descriptions, outcome links, free_form_criterion_comments) and distinguishes itself from sibling rubric tools like create_rubric or update_rubric by focusing on duplication semantics.

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 clear usage context: it explains the default same-course behavior and how to copy cross-course via target_course_id, and mentions optional renaming/assignment association. It does not explicitly name alternative tools to use instead, but the duplication context is unambiguous enough to guide tool selection.

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