create_assignment

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions that the assignment 'Defaults to unpublished,' which is a useful behavioral detail not obvious from the schema. It also explains the ISO-8601 format for due_at and comma-separated submission_types, adding context beyond the schema. However, it omits other behavioral aspects like permissions required, whether creation triggers notifications, or what happens to related resources.

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 compact, with two sentences that deliver the core action and key format hints upfront. It avoids unnecessary fluff and each sentence earns its place. The examples for due_at and submission_types are directly useful and clear.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description does not clarify the full parameter set for an agent that has no prior context. It covers the non-required parameters due_at and submission_types but omits meaningful guidance on name, description, and points_possible. The presence of defaults in the schema partially mitigates this, but the description still leaves an agent to infer several parameter semantics. Overall adequate but not thorough.

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 must compensate. It explains two parameters (due_at and submission_types) with format examples, but ignores the other five (name, description, points_possible, published, course_identifier). The required parameters course_identifier and name are not described at all; while their meaning is inferable from the tool name, the description fails to explicitly connect them. The partial coverage is insufficient for a 0% baseline.

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 'Create an assignment' with a specific resource. It is not a tautology and distinguishes the tool's purpose from read-only tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from other create tools like create_announcement or create_discussion_topic. The verb and object are unambiguous.

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 provides format details for due_at and submission_types, but it gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or mention sibling tools like update_assignment, so an agent might not know that this tool is solely for creating new assignments rather than updating existing ones. The usage context is implied but not explicit.

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