bulk-update-assignment-dates

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

The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the idempotentHint annotation. It does not mention what happens to unspecified dates, whether the operation is atomic, or any partial failure behavior. With the annotation already indicating idempotency, the description adds minimal additional transparency, but does not contradict the annotation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It immediately conveys the tool's purpose and scope, making it highly efficient.

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?

Despite moderate complexity (array of objects, optional fields), the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values (no output schema), error handling, or how partial updates are treated. An agent would need more context to understand the full behavior of this bulk operation, especially given the absence of an output schema.

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?

The schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'due/unlock/lock dates' aligns with the schema fields, but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 states the action ('bulk update') and the specific resources ('due/unlock/lock dates for assignments in a course'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like update-assignment (which likely updates a single assignment) and delete-assignment, making its 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 implies usage context: use when needing to update date fields across multiple assignments simultaneously. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, such as when only updating a single assignment or non-date fields. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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