ghl_course_update_assignment

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds real operational context beyond them: required OAuth scope courses.write, location-token requirement, and the Version: v3 header. It stops short of saying whether the body is a full replace or a partial merge, which matters for a PUT.

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 useful productId clarification is front-loaded, but the text repeats itself: 'Update Assignment' / 'Update an assignment' restates the name and title, and the v3 version/endpoint information is stated twice ('Send Version: v3' plus the parenthetical header and source file).

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 mutation with no output schema, the description supplies auth scope, version header, and path semantics, and the nested body properties are fully documented in the schema. The remaining gap is update semantics (full replace vs partial, and what happens to omitted fields).

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; the description earns an extra point by clarifying that productId is the course/product id, resolving ambiguity the schema's bare 'Product id' leaves open. It does not add meaning for locationId or assignmentId beyond the schema.

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+resource ('Update an assignment') and disambiguates the path parameter by declaring that {productId} is the course (product) id. The sibling set (create/get/delete assignment) makes the operation self-evident, but 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?

Usage is implied by 'Update an assignment' against existing create/get/delete siblings, and the auth preconditions (Sub-Account token with courses.write) are stated. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or pointer to the alternative tool for creating versus editing.

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