post-submission-comment

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

With only destructiveHint=false provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure, but it only states the action without mentioning side effects, permissions, or whether the comment is appended or replaces existing ones. This is insufficient for a write operation.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and object. Every word adds value, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 is relatively simple with no output schema or nested objects, but the description lacks context about return behavior, potential errors, or how it differs from closely related tools like grade-submission. It is minimally sufficient but not fully complete.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all four required parameters, so the schema already explains each parameter. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what is in the schema, aligning with the baseline score of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Attach') and resource ('comment on a student's submission'), clearly identifying the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools like grade-submission, which handles grading rather than feedback 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?

The description implies usage (targeted feedback on a submission) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives, or when not to use it. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisite conditions.

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