create_rubric_from_csv

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

Discloses critical behavioral details beyond annotations: it polls the import job, imported rubrics go to Draft state and are not returned by list_rubrics, and succeeded_with_errors is terminal and may mean zero rubrics. This adds substantial value not captured in the simple annotations (idempotentHint false, destructiveHint false).

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 well-structured with a clear overview, format specification, and bullet-pointed caveats. Each sentence earns its place, covering essential information without padding.

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 (CSV parsing, async job polling) and the lack of an output schema, the description covers all crucial aspects: parameters, required format, and two non-obvious behaviors that could lead to false conclusions. No gaps identified.

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?

While the schema already describes both parameters, the description goes far beyond by specifying the exact CSV structure, required columns, an example, and validation notes. This fully compensates for any potential ambiguity in the schema and adds actionable detail.

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?

Clearly states it creates one or more rubrics from a CSV string, distinguishing itself from the sibling create_rubric (which likely handles single rubrics). The verb 'create' and resource 'rubrics' are specified, and the CSV method differentiates it from alternatives.

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?

Provides strong context for when to use this tool (CSV-based bulk import) and explains required format and Canvas behaviors. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like create_rubric, so it falls short of a 5.

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