classroom_patch_assignment

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

Annotations already signal that this is not read-only, and the description adds a mild behavioral trait: only supplied fields are updated via updateMask. It does not disclose broader side effects, prerequisites, or handling of omitted/unset fields, but for a simple patch it passes a bare-minimum bar.

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 a single, compact sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action and object and states the key mechanism before any extra detail.

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 an 11-parameter patch tool with no output schema and low parameter coverage, this description is too terse to fully guide invocation. It omits updateMask construction, required-parameter context, field dependencies, and any indication of what the response contains.

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?

With 45% schema description coverage, the description needed to compensate by explaining key parameters or updateMask usage, but it only restates the updateMask concept. It adds no meaning for courseId, id, state, title, topicId, maxPoints, or description beyond what the schema does.

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?

It clearly states the verb (Update), the target resource (existing assignment), and the mechanism (using updateMask). This distinguishes it from sibling creation, listing, and retrieval tools by the patch-on-existing-assignment operation.

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 phrase 'existing assignment' implies this is for modifying an already-created assignment rather than creating or reading one. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over sibling tools or what circumstances make it inappropriate.

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