create_assignment

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

The annotations indicate idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no further behavioral context such as side effects, permission requirements, or consequences of duplicate calls. It simply states the action without elaborating on what happens upon creation.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is well-structured and directly to the point, making it easy to parse.

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's complexity (14 parameters, many optional), the description does not explain the effects of omitted parameters, default behaviors, or how the assignment interacts with other course elements. It lacks context about the impact of setting fields like 'published' or 'grading_type', leaving the user without enough information to anticipate outcomes.

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 provides descriptions for all 14 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any clarification beyond the schema's own terse parameter descriptions, leaving the meaning of fields like 'assignment_group_id' or 'allowed_extensions' to the user's interpretation.

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 action: 'Create a new assignment in a course.' It specifies the resource (assignment) and the context (course), distinguishing it from other tools like 'update_assignment' or 'create_discussion_topic'.

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 such as 'update_assignment' or 'create_announcement'. It does not mention any prerequisites, typical scenarios, or conditions that would make this the appropriate choice.

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