create-assignment

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

Annotations already indicate a safe, non-destructive operation (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that all fields are optional except courseId, which clarifies the required input. However, it does not disclose side effects, default values, or any post-creation behavior.

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 primary purpose. It contains no wasted words and is easy to parse.

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 tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, minimal annotations), the description is too sparse. It does not cover parameter semantics, expected response, permissions, or how fields interact. The schema partially lists properties but lacks descriptions for most, leaving significant gaps.

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 only 11% (only courseId is described). The description clarifies that all other fields are optional but does not explain the meaning of name, due_at, published, grading_type, points_possible, submission_types, or assignment_group_id. It only minimally compensates for the lack of schema 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?

The description clearly states the tool's action ('Create a new assignment') and the target resource within a specific context ('in a course'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create-assignment-group and update-assignment, which have different resources or actions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as update-assignment for modifications or delete-assignment for removals. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or typical use cases.

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