quiz_video_delete_quizPermanently delete a quiz and all of its questions, answers, and hooks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| quizId | Yes | Quiz ID in YouTube-style 11-character base64url format. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint: true and idempotentHint: true, but the description adds value by specifying 'permanently delete' and enumerating exactly what gets destroyed, going beyond the generic annotation. No contradiction is present.
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 immediately states the action and its consequences. It contains no superfluous information.
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 simple delete operation with one parameter, the description fully explains the tool's effect, and the annotations cover the idempotent and destructive nature. The absence of an output schema is acceptable here as the outcome is already clearly implied.
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 fully documents the single parameter 'quizId' with a description of its format. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so it does not exceed the baseline provided by the complete schema coverage.
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 permanently deletes a quiz, and specifically enumerates the cascading deletion of questions, answers, and hooks. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_quiz_hook, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 context by indicating the scope of deletion (quiz plus associated questions, answers, hooks), which implicitly guides when to use this tool versus more targeted delete tools. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative scenarios.
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.