delete_assignment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the action is permanent ('cannot be undone') and that it also removes associated submissions and grades, which is critical behavioral information for a destructive operation. This is more than a minimal statement but does not cover every possible side effect (e.g., permissions, cascading effects on other entities).

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 two sentences and directly states the core purpose and a critical caveat ('cannot be undone'). There is no fluff or repetition; every word adds value. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 delete operation with only two parameters, the description covers the destructive nature and irreversibility, which are the most important aspects. It does not describe the output (but an output schema exists, so that is not necessary) nor does it explain parameter usage, but given the low parameter count and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. The missing parameter explanations are a notable gap but not critical enough to lower the score further.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not explain what course_identifier or assignment_id refer to or how they should be formatted. The description only mentions what the tool does, not what the parameters mean. Since the schema provides no parameter descriptions, the description should compensate but fails to do so, leaving the agent to guess parameter semantics.

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 (permanently delete) on a specific resource (an assignment) and explicitly mentions the impact on submissions and grades. This distinguishes it from other delete tools for different resources (e.g., delete_page, delete_module) without needing to read sibling names.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. However, the destructive nature and the fact that it targets assignments imply that it should be used only when an assignment needs to be permanently removed, which is a clear but implicit context.

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