post_staged_grades

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden; it usefully discloses the critical preview-vs-post gate and that results appear in SpeedGrader. It stops short of stating irreversibility, required teacher permissions, or what happens on partial failure.

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 tight sentences with the mutation and its safety gate front-loaded; no waste.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the core post/preview behavior but omits workflow relationships to sibling staging tools and consequence details an agent needs to invoke it safely.

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 only 50%, and the two undocumented parameters (course_id, assignment_id) are the required ones. The description restates confirm's preview behavior (already fully documented in the schema) and says nothing about user_ids, so it adds little 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?

Clear specific verb+resource: it sends staged grades/comments to Canvas and notes they surface in SpeedGrader. An agent can tell this is the publish step for previously staged grades, but it never names sibling tools like stage_grade, list_staged, or discard_staged to differentiate the workflow position.

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?

It implies a two-phase workflow by noting that without confirm=true the call only previews, which is genuine usage guidance. However it never states when to prefer this over siblings (stage_grade/discard_staged) or the precondition that grades must already be staged.

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