update_rubric_association

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation modifies settings 'without re-associating', which is a key behavioral trait. It also adds practical context about ID discovery and maps hide_points to the UI label 'Remove points from rubric'. It doesn't mention permissions or side effects, but it is transparent about the core behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy or fluff.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description provides sufficient operational guidance: clear scope, specific settings, and a method to find the association ID. It doesn't explain return values, but the task is straightforward and the schema covers parameter details.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that association_id is not the rubric ID or assignment ID, and by explaining the UI mapping for hide_points. These details go beyond the schema descriptions and help avoid misuse.

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 identifies the verb 'Update' and the specific resource 'display/grading settings of an existing rubric–assignment association', distinguishing it from re-associating. It also enumerates concrete settings (hide_points, hide_score_total, use_for_grading), 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 explicit context for when to use the tool ('Use this to toggle...') and tells how to find the required association_id via get_rubric. It implicitly differentiates from re-associating, but doesn't name sibling tools like associate_rubric or remove_rubric_from_assignment as alternatives, leaving a small gap.

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