grade_submission

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that grading overwrites the existing grade, whether the comment replaces prior comments, or any permission or irreversibility implications. The note about assignment types is helpful but does not cover the mutation's side effects.

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 action, and every sentence earns its place. It is concise without unnecessary detail.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must explain what to expect on invocation. It does not mention return values, error conditions, or side effects beyond the action itself. While it covers usage context, it is incomplete for an agent needing to know what happens after grading.

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 schema has 100% coverage, with each parameter well-described, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, aside from restating that a score and optional comment are involved, which is already in the schema.

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 (grade) and resource (single student submission) with clear scope (score and optional comment). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool grade_with_rubric, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool versus grade_with_rubric, and clarifies it applies to regular assignments, graded discussions, and New Quizzes. This provides clear context and an exclusionary alternative.

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