hide_grades

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It states the core action but doesn't disclose side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or what exactly happens to student visibility (e.g., do they see grades in gradebook? Are comments hidden?). This leaves significant behavioral uncertainty.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. No wasted words.

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 is simple with a complete schema, but the lack of annotations and behavioral depth means the description doesn't fully prepare the agent for side effects or alternatives. It is adequate for basic invocation but not comprehensive.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the schema already documents them. The description adds only the optional 'specific students only' nuance, aligning with only_student_ids, but no additional syntax or format details.

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 uses the specific verb 'hide' with a clear resource ('grades from students for an assignment') and notes the optional scoping to specific students. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like post_grades or grade_submission.

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 implies the use case (hiding grades) and mentions the optional 'for specific students only' nuance. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like post_grades, nor any exclusions.

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