update-assignment

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

The annotations provide idempotentHint: true, and the description does not contradict this. However, the description adds limited behavioral context beyond telling the agent that all fields except identifiers are optional, which hints at partial-update semantics. It does not disclose side effects, permissions, or behavior when fields are omitted, relying on the annotation for safety.

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 that immediately identifies the tool's purpose and the key parameter requirement. It is appropriately concise, though it omits details that would make it more useful.

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?

With 10 parameters, 20% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is far too minimal. It does not list updatable fields, expected input formats, or any return behavior, making it inadequate for an agent to confidently invoke the tool with correct arguments.

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 20% (courseId and assignmentId), leaving all other 8 parameters undocumented. The description only repeats the requirement that non-identifier fields are optional, which the schema already encodes. It does not explain formats (e.g., due_at, grading_type) or valid values, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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: 'Update an assignment.' This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like create-assignment, delete-assignment, and get-assignment. It also adds clarity by noting that all fields are optional except courseId and assignmentId.

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 when to use the tool (to modify an existing assignment) but does not explicitly differentiate it from alternatives like bulk-update-assignment-dates or list-assignments. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and siblings.

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