moodle_submit_assignment

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true; the description adds the crucial specifics that the call REPLACES existing text/files, that the default leaves a draft, and that submit_for_grading finalises and accepts the submission statement. Missing only auth/error behavior, which is minor here.

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?

Three tight sentences, all load-bearing: what it does, the destructive replacement semantics, and the approval precondition. Front-loaded with the operation before the caveats.

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?

For a destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral facts an agent needs before invoking. It omits only edge details like failure handling or whether a prior draft is retrievable, which are secondary.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It maps text_html to 'online text (HTML)' and file_paths to 'local files', and fully explains submit_for_grading's default and effect; only assign_id is left implicit, which is low risk.

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?

States a specific verb (Save/submit) and resource (user's submission for an assignment), plus the two content channels it accepts. No sibling tool offers submission, so the agent can distinguish it immediately.

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?

Gives a clear precondition ('Only call after the user has approved the exact content') and explains the draft-vs-finalise decision via submit_for_grading. It does not name an alternative sibling for read-only assignment inspection, but the when-to-use condition is explicit.

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