create_student_anonymization_map

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

Annotations include idempotentHint: true and destructiveHint: true, but the description does not elaborate on these. For instance, it doesn't disclose that the tool might overwrite an existing file (destructive) or that it can be run multiple times safely (idempotent). The description does not contradict the annotations, but it also doesn't add context beyond what annotations already provide. With annotations present, the description adds minimal behavioral context, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, concise sentence that clearly states the tool's core function without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the primary action (create) and resource (local CSV file), making it highly 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is adequately complete. It specifies the output (local CSV file) and the mapping purpose. However, it could benefit from mentioning the file location or how the anonymous IDs are generated, but these are not strictly required for basic usage. The annotations provide some context, so a score of 4 is justified.

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% with only one parameter, course_identifier, described as 'Course code or Canvas ID'. The description does not add additional parameter semantics, but the schema itself is sufficient. With 100% coverage, the baseline is 3; however, the schema provides clear meaning, and the parameter is straightforward, so a small credit for clarity in the schema yields a 4.

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 tool creates a local CSV file mapping real student data to anonymous IDs for a course. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from siblings like get_anonymization_status by focusing on creation of a mapping file. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other anonymization-related tools, though the verb 'create' and resource 'CSV file' make the purpose clear.

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 implies usage for creating anonymization mappings for a course, but it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_anonymization_status or other data export tools. It also doesn't provide context on prerequisites or after-effects. There is some guidance in the tool's name and description, but it's not explicit about exclusions.

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