hide_grades

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action (hide grades) but does not disclose side effects, reversibility (beyond the inverse hint), permission requirements, or impact on existing grade visibility. The description is a bare statement without deeper behavioral context, which is insufficient given no annotation support.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and immediately references the inverse relationship. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no fluff or redundancy. It is optimally sized for its content.

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?

Given that there are no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and only a minimal one-sentence description, the definition is not complete for an agent to call the tool confidently. It lacks guidance on when to use it (beyond the inverse hint), parameter specifics, and behavioral nuances. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the overall context is thin for a mutation tool.

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 for parameter meaning. However, it does not mention either parameter (course_identifier or assignment_id) or provide any additional context about their formats or expected values. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no value beyond the schema, leaving all explanation to the agent's inference.

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 uses a specific verb ('hide') and resource ('an assignment's grades from students'), explicitly stating the action. It also references the sibling 'post_grades' as its inverse, which distinguishes it from that tool and clarifies its purpose.

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 phrase 'the inverse of post_grades' implies when to use it (to reverse a posting action), but it does not explicitly state scenarios, prerequisites, or when not to use it. There is no mention of alternatives or conditions beyond this reference, leaving the usage guidance partially implicit.

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