associate_rubric

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only states the core operation. It omits side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing associations, triggers notifications) and does not explain the impact of the 'use_for_grading' and 'purpose' parameters beyond their defaults. This is insufficient for a tool that modifies state.

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 concise with a clear front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a structured parameter list. It avoids extraneous information, though the param descriptions could be slightly more compact. Overall, well-organized for quick scanning.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters (3 required) and no annotations, the description covers purpose and parameter meanings but lacks usage guidance, behavioral details, and error handling context. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description still feels incomplete for a production tool.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains each parameter with helpful context (e.g., 'Course code or Canvas ID' for course_identifier, 'grading, bookmark' for purpose). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema types and titles.

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 'Associate an existing rubric with an assignment,' which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like create_rubric or grade_with_rubric by specifying 'existing rubric,' but additional context differentiating from similar association tools would improve clarity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no prerequisites mentioned (e.g., rubric must exist, assignment must exist), nor exclusions for when not to use it. This leaves the agent without decision context.

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