ghl_course_review_assessment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/idempotency profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: the Version: v3 header requirement, the exact HTTP endpoint, the courses.write OAuth scope, and a caveat that 'Location tokens are not a staff reviewer'. It does not explain the effect of the review on the submission or learner (e.g. whether a notification fires), which keeps it from a 5.

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 purpose and endpoint are front-loaded, but the token/scope requirement is stated three times in different phrasings ('Location token with courses.write', 'Requires a Sub-Account (location) token', 'OAuth scopes: courses.write'), and the leading note about the productId parameter is repeated implicitly by the endpoint path. Trimming the redundant auth lines would make it tighter.

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 4-parameter nested-body write tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs to invoke it: endpoint, version header, auth scope, sub-account requirement, and path-parameter meaning, with the body fully specified in the schema. It stops short of describing the response or the state transition produced by a review, which is the main remaining 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 the baseline is 3; every field including the nested body (status enum, score, feedback) is already documented in the schema. The description adds only a small clarification that the {productId} path parameter is the course (product) id, which is marginal over the schema's 'Product id'.

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 — 'Review an assessment submission' — and pins it to the PUT /courses/products/{productId}/assessments/{assessmentId}/review endpoint. Combined with the courses.write scope, an agent can tell this apart from the read-only siblings ghl_course_get_assessment and ghl_course_list_assessments without opening the schema.

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 establishes the auth prerequisite ('Requires a Location token with courses.write', 'Requires a Sub-Account (location) token'), which tells the agent when the call will succeed. However, it never states when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusion such as 'not for creating assessments' or 'use list_assessments to find the assessmentId first'. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Review'.

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