create_homework

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It signals configurability (deadline rules, weighting, late submission) but says nothing about required permissions, the consent/token flow implied by the consentToken parameter, side effects, duplicate handling, or what is returned.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the core action and scope lead. It is efficient but also thin — the brevity is achieved by omitting operational context rather than by compression.

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?

A nine-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema needs more: nothing addresses authorization requirements, the consentToken/permanent-consent interplay, or the effect of allowDelay and weight on resulting course state. For a creation tool in a family that includes consent-management siblings, this leaves a real gap.

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 100%, so all nine parameters are already documented in the schema, including type enum, weight range 0-100, date format, and consentToken. The description's feature list (分組作業/成績比重/遲交規則) merely restates parameters at a higher level without adding syntax or edge-case meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (新增) and resource (作業) scoped to 指定課程, and enumerates the capability surface (個人/分組作業、起訖時間、成績比重、遲交規則). An agent can distinguish it from list_homeworks or copy_homework without opening the schema, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as copy_homework or ai_generate_homework_assignment. Critically, it never says that a consentToken may be required or that request_action_consent is the sibling to call first, despite a consentToken parameter being present.

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