update_rubric_assessment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds useful context about the tool's surgical scope ('without re-grading the whole submission', 'surgically edit one row'), but does not mention other behavioral aspects like whether the edit is reversible, required permissions, or how existing data is handled. The schema covers the replace behavior, but the description alone is not rich.

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, front-loaded with purpose, then usage guideline. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff. Well-structured for an AI agent to quickly parse.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and parameter lookup strategy. It doesn't explain the response after editing, but given the absence of an output schema, that's not required. It differentiates from siblings and provides enough context to use correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how to obtain two key parameters (rubric_association_id and assessment_id) via a specific API call, and provides an example use case. This goes beyond the raw schema descriptions.

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 edits an existing rubric assessment, with a specific example ('correct one student's rubric grade') and distinguishes it from re-grading the whole submission. It also names the alternative grade_with_rubric, 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?

Explicitly says when to use this tool versus grade_with_rubric, and provides a concrete prerequisite: find rubric_association_id and assessment_id by calling get_rubric with include=['assessments']. This gives clear when/when-not guidance.

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