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

Annotations already declare a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world mutation, and the description adds real value on top: no credit is consumed, nothing is published, images cannot be attached here, and the result carries an editor_url. The main omission is that it does not mention any permission or auth requirements for creating a quiz.

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 text is front-loaded with the mutation cue and purpose, then proceeds through prerequisites, content-integrity rules, a gotcha, and cost/side effects. Every sentence carries information, though the opening 'Changes data.' is somewhat redundant with the annotations.

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 single complex nested-object parameter with no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, fidelity rules, the image limitation, and the return value pointer (editor_url). An agent has enough to call it correctly without further clarification.

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 schema already documents every field, including the nested question variants. The description's one parameter-level note, that choice 'correct' is zero-based, merely repeats the schema's own description, so it adds little new meaning beyond the structured fields.

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 — save a new private quiz — and pins the scenario (a live event where players join on their phones). It also implicitly separates itself from publish_quiz and update_quiz by asserting that creating "publishes nothing" and produces a new object rather than modifying one.

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?

It gives concrete when-to-use procedure: collect missing essentials (occasion, number of players, language, rounds) before calling, and it clarifies the publish boundary so the agent knows this is not the publishing step. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives such as preview_quiz or validate_quiz explicitly.

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