assign_peer_review

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the action and the prerequisite, but does not disclose what happens if the assignment already exists, whether assignments are overwritten, or any error handling. The description is accurate but lacks depth beyond the core operation.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the action with all parameters, the second provides a critical prerequisite and references the alternative tool. No wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple assignment tool with four required parameters and an output schema (not shown but present), the description is complete enough. It covers the purpose, prerequisite, and parameter roles. It does not mention potential error conditions or idempotency, but that is not critical for this straightforward action.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description clarifies the roles of the parameters by saying 'Assign reviewer_user_id to peer-review reviewee_user_id's submission.' This explains the relationship between reviewer_user_id and reviewee_user_id in a way the schema alone does not. It does not individually document course_identifier or assignment_id, but those are self-explanatory.

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: assigning a specific reviewer to a specific reviewee's submission on an assignment. It specifies the exact parameters involved and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_peer_reviews and delete_peer_review by focusing on the assignment action rather than listing or removing.

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 explicitly states a prerequisite: the assignment must have peer_reviews=True set first, and it points to the update_assignment tool. This tells the agent exactly when it is appropriate to call this tool and directs them to the correct alternative if the prerequisite isn't met.

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