ghl_course_create_lesson_assignment

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world create operation. The description adds important context beyond annotations: required OAuth scope, sub-account token requirement, Version v3 header, and the fact that locationId, userId, and productId are not accepted in the body.

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 front-loaded with purpose and requirements, and it avoids unnecessary prose. It repeats token requirements slightly by saying both 'Requires a Location token' and 'Requires a Sub-Account (location) token,' but the overall structure is 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 nested-body mutation with no output schema, the description covers the endpoint, auth scope, version header, and parameter caveats well. It does not describe response behavior or duplicate-assignment handling, but that is a minor gap given the annotations and schema.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds useful semantic detail by clarifying that productId is the course id, lessonId is sent to membership as postId, and certain fields must not appear in the body.

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 states a specific verb and resource: creating an assignment on a lesson. It identifies the course context via productId and the lesson via lessonId, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_assignment, delete_assignment, and get_lesson_assignment.

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 gives clear preconditions: a Location token with courses.write, Version v3, and the endpoint shape. It does not explicitly name update_assignment as the modification alternative, but the creation intent is unambiguous.

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