create_rubric

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the creation behavior, optional immediate association with an assignment, and the non-obvious effect that linked criteria feed into outcome rollups. However, it doesn't mention permissions, idempotency, or return value details, leaving some gaps for a write operation.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary action. It uses four sentences to convey purpose, criteria shape, optional assignment association, and outcome linking, with no redundant phrases.

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?

For a create operation with rich schema annotations, the description covers the essential inputs and noteworthy behavior (outcome rollups). It could mention the return value or whether associating with an assignment has grading implications, but the absence of an output schema and the schema's own descriptions mitigate this gap.

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?

The input schema already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains the structure of criteria as an array of objects with ratings, that assignment_id is for immediate association, and how learning_outcome_id influences outcome rollups. This enriches the agent's understanding of how to construct valid arguments.

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+resource ('Create a new rubric in a course'), and then elaborates on the criteria and ratings structure. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like update_rubric, list_rubrics, or associate_rubric by focusing on the creation action.

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?

It explains when to use this tool (to create a rubric), describes the required input structure, and provides a pointer to list_outcomes for finding learning outcome IDs. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternative tools like associate_rubric for attaching an existing rubric to an assignment, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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