Submit Assignment

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description goes well beyond that: it discloses the dry-run default that prevents real mutation, the resubmission guard flag, the unsupported LTI case, and a UI fallback limited to a single file. These are concrete operational behaviors an agent needs before invoking a destructive 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?

Four tightly packed sentences with zero filler; the network tag and action lead, followed by the safety default. Slightly dense, but each clause (dry_run, confirm_resubmit, LTI limits, fallback) carries distinct information.

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 destructive mutation tool with 7 parameters, the description covers prerequisites, unsupported cases, safety defaults, and fallback behavior. An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the annotations already carry the safety profile.

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, but the description adds cross-parameter relationships the schema cannot express: file_paths maps to online_upload, body maps to online_text_entry, and confirm_resubmit gates resubmission. That is real semantic value beyond the per-field 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?

States a specific verb+resource ("과제를 제출합니다" / submits the assignment) and immediately scopes what submission types are valid. It also names the sibling to consult first (eclass_get_assignment_detail), so an agent can separate it from read-only siblings like eclass_get_assignment_detail or eclass_get_materials without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit when/when-not: default dry_run=true validates without submitting, resubmission requires confirm_resubmit=true, and external_tool (LTI) assignments cannot be submitted at all. It also routes the agent to a precondition check and names a fallback path, leaving little to inference.

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