post_grades

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the core side effect (grades become visible to students), which is a write/mutation operation. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, permissions required, reversibility, or what happens to already-posted grades. The description adds some value beyond the tool name but lacks depth about the operation's implications, making it adequate but with gaps.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence immediately establishes verb, object, and purpose. The second sentence introduces the optional behavior in a clear, front-loaded manner. There is no redundant information, and every word earns its place. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 simplicity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, the visible outcome, and the optional parameter behavior. It does not explain return values (likely none for a mutation) or prerequisites, but the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool. It could optionally mention the opposite operation (hide_grades) or that it is a write operation, but those are not critical for basic usage.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already described (course_id, assignment_id, only_student_ids). The description adds a brief summary of the optional parameter ('Optionally post for specific students only'), but this repeats the schema's own description for only_student_ids without adding new details. No additional syntax or format information is provided, so the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond 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 clearly states the action ('Post' or 'make visible') and the resource ('grades for an assignment'). It also explains the purpose ('so students can see them') and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'hide_grades' by explicitly contrasting visibility. The optional behavior for specific students is also mentioned, making the 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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you want to make grades visible to students. It also gives a conditional usage ('Optionally post for specific students only'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as saying 'use hide_grades to reverse' or 'use this instead of the hide tool when you want to release grades'. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, so it falls short of a 5.

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