quiz_video_create_flashcard_deckCreate a flashcard deck. Required: title (3-120 chars) and cards[] (min 1). Optional: description (≤1200 chars), tags (≤50 each).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | Optional tags to categorize the deck (≤50 characters each). | |
| cards | Yes | Flashcards in the deck; at least one card is required. | |
| title | Yes | Deck title (3–120 characters). | |
| description | No | Optional deck description (≤1200 characters). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal a write operation (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description's 'Create' is consistent with that but adds no further behavioral context, such as whether a unique deck is always created, what identifier is returned, or if any existing data is affected. No additional constraints or side effects are disclosed, so the description adds little beyond the annotations.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently summarizes the tool's purpose and core parameter constraints. It has no filler or redundant content, making it appropriately concise for a simple create operation. A slightly richer detail on what the deck is used for would be nice, but not at the expense of conciseness.
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?
With no output schema, the description should compensate by explaining what the tool returns (e.g., the created deck object or an ID), but it does not. It also omits any mention of how this deck fits into the broader workflow, such as adding quiz questions later or rendering it. The parameter documentation is thorough, but the description lacks essential context for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and results.
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 recaps required/optional parameters and their length constraints, but these are already fully documented in the schema. It adds no deeper semantic insight, such as relationships between cards or the meaning of the 'order' field, which is left to 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?
The description 'Create a flashcard deck' uses a specific verb and resource, and the tool name is highly descriptive. It clearly states the action, distinguishing it from other creation tools by the resource type (deck vs. quiz/template). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings beyond the resource name, so minor improvement is possible.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites or related workflow steps. It only lists required/optional parameters, which is parameter information rather than usage context. This leaves the agent without insight into the tool's role among the many sibling tools.
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.
Every tool targets a distinct resource and action (create/get/list/update/delete per entity). Overlapping pairs like get_render vs download_render are clearly differentiated by their purpose, and generate_quiz vs create_quiz serve different creation modes. There is no ambiguity between tools.
The vast majority of tools follow a consistent 'quiz_video_<verb>_<noun>' pattern in snake_case. The only deviation is the three discovery tools (get_api_catalog, get_llms_txt, get_openapi_spec) which omit the 'quiz_video_' prefix, though they still use a clear verb_noun structure.
With 30 tools, the server is on the heavier side and exceeds the typical 15-tool guideline. However, the count is justified by the breadth of resources covered (quizzes, questions, hooks, templates, flashcard decks, renders, music, account) and each tool has a distinct role, so the size feels appropriate for a comprehensive API surface.
The server covers full CRUD for most core resources (quizzes, templates, flashcard decks, hooks) and add/list for questions. Minor gaps include no individual question update/delete and no direct render deletion, but these are not critical and the main workflows (create → view → render → download) are fully covered.