grade-submission

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

The annotation idempotentHint=true is present, but the description adds no additional behavioral context such as whether existing grades are overwritten, permission requirements, or effects on other systems. The phrase 'write back' implies mutation but doesn't elaborate on idempotent behavior or side effects.

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 sentence, front-loading the core action and artifacts. It is efficient with no redundancy, though it could be expanded slightly for completeness without harming conciseness.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters and no output schema. The description fails to explain what happens when optional parameters are omitted, the structure of rubric_assessment, or the response format. It covers the general purpose but is insufficient for a tool with this complexity.

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 schema coverage at 43%, three of seven parameters lack descriptions. The description maps generic categories (score, grade, rubric points, comment) to potential parameters but doesn't clarify which parameter maps to 'grade' vs 'score' (e.g., posted_grade vs score) or explain 'rubric_assessment.' This leaves ambiguity.

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 function with a specific verb 'write back' and a resource 'a student's submission,' listing the types of grading artifacts (score, grade, rubric points, comment). This distinguishes it from siblings like post-submission-comment which handles only comments.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it covers multiple grading actions, it doesn't mention exclusions or recommend it over sibling tools for specific scenarios, leaving the agent to infer.

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