update_assignment_dates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the update action and compatible object types, but does not mention potential side effects, whether unspecified date fields remain unchanged, permission requirements, or response format. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 sentences, tightly packed with relevant information: what the tool does, the scope, compatible object types, and a preference rule over a sibling. No filler or restatement of the name.

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 simple date-update tool, the description covers purpose, scope, applicable object types, and sibling distinction. It does not explain return values or error cases, but the absence of an output schema and the straightforward nature of the operation make the definition reasonably complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 applies. The description repeats the three date field names but doesn't add additional syntax, formatting, or clearing behavior beyond what the schema already documents. It adds marginal value by emphasizing the 'and/or' partial update nature, but the schema already communicates optionality.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Update due_at, unlock_at, and/or lock_at for a single assignment'), clearly naming the exact fields affected. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling update_assignment by focusing on dates and mentioning compatibility with graded discussions and New Quizzes.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Prefer this over update_assignment when you only need to change dates.' This tells the agent exactly when to select this tool over the closest alternative. The note that it works for graded discussions and New Quizzes broadens the context of appropriate use.

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