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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows it's a write operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context, only noting that 'hook' is a pass-through object. It does not mention response format, error conditions, or side effects, which would be useful for a create operation.

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 only two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded. The second sentence adds necessary clarification about the 'hook' parameter without unnecessary detail. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity (nested hook object, no output schema, two required params). The description is minimal but adequate, covering the basic operation and pointing to the OpenAPI spec for hook details. However, it omits important operational context such as the return value, behavior if quizId does not exist, or relationship with update/delete hook tools, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 adds meaningful semantic value by explaining that 'hook' is a pass-through object following the HookInput schema, which clarifies that the API likely expects an opaque object and reduces ambiguity about additionalProperties. This goes slightly beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 action ('Create') and resource ('a hook for a quiz'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like quiz_video_create_quiz and quiz_video_update_quiz_hook by using 'hook' as the object.

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 implicitly indicates use when creating a new hook, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as update_quiz_hook for modifying existing hooks. No prerequisites (e.g., quiz existence) or exclusions are mentioned, so guidance is only implied.

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