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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the conditional behavior for question types (options vs. correct_answer) and adds the validation rule that at least one option must be correct. However, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., quiz existence), side effects, or safety implications, leaving the full mutation context undisclosed.

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 two sentences, directly addresses the primary purpose, and uses clear structure to separate multiple_choice and true_false instructions. Every sentence contributes useful information with zero redundancy.

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 8 parameters, 3 required, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is too brief to be contextually complete. It covers the key type-specific behavior but omits guidance on required fields (quiz_id, question_text, question_type) and optional parameters like sort_order and explanation, leaving the agent with gaps in understanding the full invocation context.

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 low (38%), so the description is expected to compensate. It clarifies the structure of options and the requirement for correct_answer in true_false, adding the 'at least one is_correct:true' rule. It does not explain other parameters like quiz_id, question_text, sort_order, or explanation, so only partial compensation is achieved.

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 opens with 'Add a question to a quiz,' using a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_quiz and update_quiz_question. The focus on adding a question (not updating or listing) directly matches the tool name and intent.

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, type-specific usage guidance: for multiple_choice pass options with at least one correct, for true_false omit options and set a boolean correct_answer. It implies when to use this tool (to create a quiz question) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like update_quiz_question or list_quiz_questions.

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