update_assignment

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

The annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, which covers safety and mutation expectations. The description adds the precondition that the assignment must already exist, but it does not describe overwrite/null semantics, response behavior, or other operational details beyond the annotations.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, repetition, or extraneous detail. Every word contributes to identifying the tool's purpose.

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 rich 15-parameter schema and clear annotations, the tool is reasonably invocable. However, with no output schema and no mention of partial-update behavior, null-field handling, or return value, the description alone is not fully complete for a complex mutation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented with meaningful descriptions. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

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 ('Update'), the target ('an existing assignment'), and the scope ('in a course'). This distinguishes it from create_assignment, list_assignments, and get_assignment_details without ambiguity.

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 word 'existing' implies the tool is for modifying already-created assignments rather than creating new ones, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when this should be preferred over create_assignment. Some usage context is implied, not fully specified.

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