create_assignment_override

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the purpose but does not mention runtime behavior such as conflict handling, whether existing overrides are replaced, permission requirements, or the return value. The only implied behavior is 'create,' which is evident from the name.

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 two sentences, with the first sentence front-loading the core purpose and the second providing a concrete use case. No redundant information.

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's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description provides the key use case and the core distinction between section and student overrides. However, it lacks information about return values, conflict behavior, or edge cases. It's adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, with all 7 parameters described in the schema. The description adds context around the section/student distinction (mentioning 'section or set of students') but does not clarify additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states. Thus a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Create a new date override for a specific section or set of students on an assignment,' which precisely identifies the verb, resource, and scope. It also provides an example use case that differentiates it from update/list siblings.

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 includes a clear when-to-use context: 'Use this to set section-specific due dates (e.g., different block start times for different sections).' It lacks explicit mention of alternatives or exclusions relative to update_assignment_override or batch_update_dates, so it falls short of an explicit guideline.

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