update_assignment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the mutation nature and the peer_reviews dependency, which is a genuine behavioral trait not visible in the schema. But it does not state that only provided fields are updated, mention permission requirements, or describe the response shape (relying on the output schema). It adds one meaningful behavior but omits several others.

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?

Two sentences, zero redundancy. The purpose is stated first, followed by a single, high-value dependency note. Every word earns its place; it is efficiently front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 9 parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is too thin. It lacks guidance on partial updates (whether omitted fields preserve existing values), error conditions, permissions, or how peer_reviews relates to automatic_peer_reviews. While the output schema may cover the return, the description leaves significant gaps for a tool with this complexity.

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 explain parameters. It only offers broad categories ('name, description, points, due date, published state, peer review settings') without mapping to exact property names (e.g., points_possible, due_at, automatic_peer_reviews) or explaining semantics like 'null means no change' or the difference between peer_reviews and automatic_peer_reviews. For 9 parameters, this is insufficient.

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?

Description starts with a clear verb and resource: 'Update an assignment' and enumerates specific fields (name, description, points, due date, published state, peer review settings). This distinguishes it from siblings like create_assignment and delete_assignment, and the mention of 'peer review settings' ties it to assign_peer_review. The purpose is unmistakable.

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?

Provides a concrete conditional: 'peer_reviews=True must be set before assign_peer_review will work on this assignment.' This tells the agent when this tool is a prerequisite for another action. However, it does not explicitly contrast with create_assignment (for new assignments) or note that grade changes belong to grade_submission, so cross-tool guidance is incomplete.

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