Reclaim Assignment

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the operation is equivalent to Unsubmit, works only in TURNED_IN state, and returns a confirmation. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and front-loaded: the action and equivalence appear first, followed by necessary preconditions and a brief Args/Returns structure. Every sentence adds information; there is no filler or repetition.

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?

The core action, precondition, and return type are covered, which is adequate for a simple three-string-parameter tool. However, it does not explain where course_id and coursework_id come from, nor the side effects on the submission beyond 'make edits'. These are notable gaps given no output schema and sparse parameter documentation.

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 coverage is only 33%; only submission_id has a description ('From classroom_list_submissions'). The description's Args section merely lists names and says they are strings, adding no meaning for course_id or coursework_id. Given the low coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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: 'Reclaim a turned-in submission (pull it back to make edits)', with a well-understood equivalent, 'Unsubmit'. It distinguishes the tool from its opposite sibling classroom_turn_in_submission without ambiguity.

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?

It gives explicit preconditions: 'Only works if the assignment still allows it and state is TURNED_IN.' This is clear context and even a when-not condition, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for different submission states.

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