update_rubric

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals two important traits: changes apply to all assignments using the rubric, and omitting criteria preserves existing criteria. This adds value beyond the schema, although it does not explicitly detail the destructive replacement behavior when criteria are passed (but this is implied and covered by the schema).

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every sentence contributes meaningful information: what the tool does, the global scope, and a key behavioral guarantee. No fluff or redundancy.

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 moderately complex with 5 parameters and no output schema, but the schema fully documents all parameters. The description covers the core operation and notable side effects, making the tool's behavior well-understood. It does not explain return values, but none are defined, so this is not a gap.

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 5 parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra semantic value, only mentioning the behavior of title-only updates. It does not provide additional syntax or format details 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 an existing rubric's title, criteria, or display settings. It uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('existing rubric'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_rubric, delete_rubric, and associate_rubric.

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: updating an existing rubric. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the scope is unambiguous. The behavior note about preserving criteria when only the title is changed serves as a partial guideline.

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