update_assignment

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

With no annotations present, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Update,' indicating mutation, but omits critical details such as error conditions (e.g., missing assignment), side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or return value structure. This falls short of meaningful transparency.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and uses a structured bullet-like list for parameters, which enhances readability. However, it is somewhat lengthy due to repeating parameter names, and could be slightly more compact. Overall, it is appropriately sized but not maximally concise.

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 15 parameters and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers parameter semantics but omits behavioral context such as what happens when an optional field is omitted or how the updated assignment is returned. While the parameter details are thorough, the overall usage context is incomplete without more on return value and error handling.

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 0%, so the description carries the entire burden. It provides concise yet informative descriptions for all 15 parameters, including example values for enums and formats (e.g., 'Comma-separated types (online_text_entry, ...)', 'ISO 8601 format'). This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's minimal 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 begins with 'Update an existing assignment in a course,' which clearly states the action and resource. This verb+resource specification is specific enough to distinguish from unrelated tools, and there is no ambiguity with siblings like 'create_assignment' since the resource type differs.

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 implies usage when an assignment needs modifying, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. While the context is clear, the lack of explicit when/when-not instructions makes it only adequate.

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