prepare_text_submission

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, lowering the bar. The description adds valuable behavior beyond those hints: it confirms no side effects ('without filling the editor or submitting'), discloses that it reports 'overwrite/group effects', and exposes a size limit. This is consistent with annotations and gives extra operational context.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff: the first states the purpose and return values, the second gives the groupId condition and a size/approval note. Every clause earns its place, and the main action is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description explicitly lists what is returned (exact course, assignment, text, hash, prior submissions, overwrite/group effects) and covers the key operational constraints (groupId, limit, no mutation). It gives enough for an agent to invoke it correctly and know what to expect back.

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 75%, so the schema already documents patterns for courseId, assignmentId, and groupId. The description adds meaning by explaining that groupId is specifically required for group assignments, and it restates the 256 KiB UTF-8 length limit in operational terms. This goes beyond the structured data without duplicating it.

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 ('Preview') and resource ('literal plain text for a native text assignment'), and distinguishes itself from submission tools by stating it returns details 'without filling the editor or submitting.' It also enumerates the exact return values, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like confirm_text_submission or prepare_group_enrollment.

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 gives a concrete precondition ('Group assignments require an explicit own groupId') and usable constraints ('Limit 256 KiB UTF-8; show the full preview before approval'). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as confirm_text_submission or say when not to use the tool, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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