Renames a question bank, immediately and permanently - the title is metadata, not a bank's DRAFT content, so this is unaffected by questionBank_publish/discardChanges and never shows up as an unpublished change. Rejected for a public template id, see questionBank_templateList.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | The new title. | |
| questionBankId | Yes | The ID of the question bank to rename. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond the annotations, which only include idempotentHint. It explicitly discloses that the rename is immediate and permanent, and that it does not generate unpublished changes. It also notes an edge case regarding public template ids. This is rich behavioral context that the annotation schema does not provide, and it does not contradict the idempotentHint.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every phrase adds value: immediate/permanent nature, relationship to draft content, and the rejection case. There is no wasted language, and it is appropriately sized for a simple tool with two parameters.
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 tool with only two parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is complete. It explains the effect, the side effects (unaffected by publish/discardChanges), and an edge case. There are no nested objects or complex return values that require additional explanation, so the description fully covers the tool's behavior.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters ('title' and 'questionBankId'). The schema already provides clear descriptions. The tool description adds minimal extra parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema states, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 renames a question bank, specifying both the verb ('Renames') and the resource ('question bank'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by clarifying the immediate and permanent nature of the action and explicitly noting it is unrelated to publish/discardChanges workflows.
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 provides clear guidance on when to use this tool by explaining that it affects metadata, not draft content, and is unaffected by publish/discardChanges. It also mentions a rejection case for public template ids. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternative tools beyond the publish/discardChanges distinction, but the sibling list is comprehensive and the description effectively implies its unique role.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clear, unique purpose. The riddle_builder_* variants are distinct by Riddle type, questionBank_* and riddleTemplate_* cover separate objects, and stats_* differ by scope. No two tools appear to perform the same function.
Naming is largely consistent with domain prefixes (riddle_, questionBank_, riddleTemplate_, stats_, project_, palette_, reference_). Minor deviations like riddle_account_list vs. riddle_list and whoami (no prefix) and riddle_get_embed_code vs. riddle_qr_code slightly break the pattern, but overall it is predictable.
With 62 tools, the server is far beyond the typical 3-15 well-scoped range. While each tool is functional and the breadth reflects the platform's complexity, the sheer number makes it heavy and increases the cognitive load for an agent, suggesting over-granularity.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle: create (builder variants), read (get/list), update (builder_update, rename), delete, publish/unpublish, tagging, templates, question banks, stats, projects, palettes, and reference documentation. No obvious domain operation is missing.