classroom_create_assignment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation/non-determinism profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say that state defaults to DRAFT, that dueTime is converted to UTC, that scheduledTime defers publication, or that creation is irreversible. With annotations carrying the safety signal, this is a thin addition rather than a contradiction.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the creation verb leads and the optional payload follows. It is efficient but too short to serve as a complete definition for an eleven-parameter mutation tool.

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?

Not applicable — no output schema exists, so nothing about return values needs explaining. Wait: for a mutation tool with low schema coverage the description should do more; it under-delivers on state, scheduling, and required parameters. Score reflects that gap.

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 27%, so the description must compensate, but it mentions just four of eleven parameters (attachments, due date, topic, and implicitly workType). It omits the required courseId and title, plus state, maxPoints, scheduledTime, and description, and gives no syntax or interaction rules (e.g. dueTime defaults to 23:59).

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create an assignment or question') and enumerates distinguishing content (attachments, due date, topic), which separates it from the get/list/patch siblings. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the create-vs-read/update split is unambiguous from the name and verb.

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?

It says nothing about when to use this versus classroom_create_material or classroom_create_topic, nor about prerequisites such as teacher permissions or course state. The only guidance is the adjective 'optional', which merely restates the schema's required list.

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