update_assignment_override

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it only states 'Update dates' and gives no information about permissions, side effects, or reversibility. It does not clarify that empty strings clear dates (though the schema does), and it doesn't warn about destructive implications. This is a minimal disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 sentences, directly front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a precise prerequisite. Every word earns its place; no wasted text.

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 mutation with a well-covered schema, the description is adequate but not rich: it states the action, scope, and prerequisite. However, given no annotations or output schema, it leaves out behavioral context such as whether the update is partial or full replacement, and what happens on success. It also doesn't mention alternatives for batch or assignment-level updates.

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 provides descriptions for all six parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the generic term 'dates', and it doesn't clarify which parameters are dates. Thus, no extra value 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 tool updates dates on a single section/student override, using a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('override'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by the 'single' qualifier and the reference to sections/students, and also differs from assignment-level date updates.

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 directs the user to call list_assignment_overrides first to obtain the override ID, providing a clear prerequisite. It implies the tool is for single overrides but does not mention when not to use it or alternatives like batch_update_dates or update_assignment_dates.

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