create_rubric

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the exact JSON schema for criteria_json, which is crucial for correct input, and mentions the side-effect-free optional association. However, it does not state whether creating overwrites existing criteria, what permissions are required, or what happens if associate_with_assignment_id is omitted (e.g., an ungraded draft). Some context is added beyond the schema, but not enough to fully inform an agent about side effects.

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 efficiently paced: it states the purpose in one clause, then dives into the complex parameter with an inline example, and ends with the optional association. The example is verbose but necessary to clarify the JSON shape. No redundant sentences or filler.

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?

The tool has five parameters, one of which is a complex JSON string, and the description covers the most complex one thoroughly. However, it omits guidance on what course_identifier refers to (presumably a course ID from list_courses), and free_form_comments remains unexplained. Since the output schema is present, return values are presumably handled, but the missing parameter semantics leave gaps for an agent trying to call this correctly.

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?

The description adds significant meaning for criteria_json (explaining the exact structure and providing a full example) and briefly explains associate_with_assignment_id. However, it leaves title, course_identifier, and free_form_comments undefined. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description compensates only partially; the three unaddressed parameters are left without semantic guidance beyond their types and defaults.

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 opens with 'Create a rubric' which is a specific verb+resource and immediately distinguishes the tool from siblings like create_assignment, grade_with_rubric, and post_grades. It also clarifies the optional attach-to-assignment behavior, leaving no ambiguity about what is being created.

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 a common use case ('attach it to an assignment for grading immediately') but does not explicitly contrast with grade_with_rubric or explain when to create a rubric standalone versus associating it at creation. There is no when-not guidance or reference to alternative workflows, so the agent must infer usage from the description alone.

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