ghl_course_delete_assignment

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: required OAuth scope courses.write, sub-account location token requirement, and the v3 API version header — all things an agent needs that the annotations don't convey.

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 core instruction is front-loaded, but the block includes internal provenance ('source: v3/courses-v3.json') and redundant restatement of the endpoint alongside the parameter explanation. Trimming the source-file citation and duplicate version header note would tighten it considerably.

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 destructive three-parameter delete with no output schema, the description supplies enough: exact endpoint, auth scope, token type, and parameter identity. It lacks any statement about consequences (e.g., whether the assignment is recoverable or what happens to related grade/progress data), which would complete the picture for a destructive operation.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema's terse 'Product id' label by stating that productId refers to the course (product) id and reinforcing that locationId is the sub-account id. This resolves the main ambiguity an agent would hit.

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 and resource ('Delete an assignment') and clarifies that the {productId} path parameter is the course/product id, which disambiguates somewhat ambiguous 'assignment' terminology. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as ghl_course_update_assignment or ghl_course_get_lesson_assignment, but the COURSES API header and full endpoint path make the target resource unambiguous.

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 never says when to reach for this tool versus alternatives, nor what conditions should block a call (e.g., effects on enrollment or course progress). It does provide authentication prerequisites (location token with courses.write) and the HTTP path, which is useful context, but that is configuration detail rather than usage guidance.

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