delete_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 discloses that the operation is permanent and irreversible ("This cannot be undone"), which is critical behavioral context. It also implies destructiveness. However, it does not discuss potential side effects (e.g., impact on related entities like assignments or grades), authorization requirements, or other operational constraints. The warning about irreversibility is a strong addition, justifying a high score.

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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the critical warning about irreversibility is placed immediately after. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly efficient.

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 two self-named parameters and an output schema, the description covers the most vital contextual element—irreversibility. It does not mention potential failure conditions or prerequisites, but given the straightforward nature of the tool and the presence of an output schema for return values, the missing details are minor. The description is adequately complete for an agent to understand the operation and its key risk.

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%, and the description does not mention either parameter (course_identifier, rubric_id). Although the parameter names are self-explanatory, the descriptions are absent. The description does not add meaning beyond the parameter names, nor does it explain how they relate to the operation (e.g., that course_identifier identifies the course containing the rubric). Given the low coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not, resulting in a below-average score.

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 tool's verb and resource: "Permanently delete a rubric." It explicitly identifies that it deletes rubrics specifically, distinguishing it from the many sibling delete tools (delete_page, delete_module, delete_assignment, etc.). The permanence is also highlighted, adding precision.

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 the usage — delete a rubric — but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions or conditions. It is clear that it's for deleting rubrics, but it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites, which is typical for delete tools. The purpose is self-evident, but the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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