Delete Assignment With Confirmation

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the blast radius: every submission and grade attached to the assignment is removed, and a recycle-bin copy may or may not survive depending on admin settings. That is precisely the loss-of-data context an agent needs before a destructive call.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler; the two-step protocol is front-loaded and the destructive consequences follow immediately. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

For a destructive tool this covers the essentials: mechanism, sequencing, and impact. It omits permission/authorization requirements and whether recovery from the recycle bin is user-actionable, which would round it out, but annotations carry the safety profile and no output schema needs explaining.

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 100%, so all four parameters (including confirmation_token's preview semantics and require_name_match) are already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces the token/preview concept and adds nothing on course_identifier or name matching, so the baseline applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Delete an assignment") and immediately characterizes the unusual two-step protocol. No sibling tool in the list deletes assignments, so confusion with create_assignment/update_assignment is impossible.

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?

"Two-step: preview first, then confirm with the token" tells the agent exactly how to sequence the call and when to omit the token. It stops short of naming preconditions or explicitly discouraging use versus alternatives (e.g., archiving), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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