attach-rubric-to-assignment

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the idempotentHint annotation. It does not explain what happens if a rubric is already attached, whether it replaces the existing rubric, or any side effects. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description still fails to disclose the operation's behavioral traits.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the purpose. There is no unnecessary information, making it perfectly concise for the tool's simple functionality.

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 the low complexity (3 simple string parameters, no output schema) and the idempotency annotation, the description is minimally viable. However, it omits key contextual details such as the effect on an existing rubric attachment, which an agent would likely need to know for correct usage.

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 description coverage is 100% with each parameter having a clear description (e.g., 'The ID of the course'). The tool description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Attach a rubric to an assignment' clearly states the verb (attach), resource (rubric), and target (assignment). It is specific and unambiguous, and there is no sibling tool with a similar purpose, so it distinguishes itself effectively.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this should be used instead of updating the assignment or list-rubrics, nor does it describe any prerequisites or context for use.

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