quiz_video_update_quiz_hookUpdate an existing hook on a quiz. Requires quizId and numeric hookId; updates is a partial HookInput.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hookId | Yes | Numeric id of the hook to update (from list_quiz_hooks). | |
| quizId | Yes | Quiz ID in YouTube-style 11-character base64url format. | |
| updates | Yes | Partial HookInput object; only included fields are updated. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate mutating (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds useful context that updates are partial (only included fields are changed) and that hookId must be numeric, which is not fully captured by 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 concise sentence that immediately communicates the action, resource, and core requirements. Every word earns its place with no 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?
For a tool with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: what it does, required identifiers, and partial-update semantics. It lacks explicit return-value/error details, but those are not required given the simplicity and existing annotations.
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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter described in the schema. The description repeats the numeric hookId constraint and 'partial HookInput' semantics already present in the schema. It adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, hence baseline 3.
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 'Update an existing hook on a quiz' clearly states a specific action (update) on a specific resource (hook on a quiz), distinguishing it from siblings like create_quiz_hook, delete_quiz_hook, and list_quiz_hooks. It also adds necessary identification requirements.
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 implies usage by stating prerequisites ('Requires quizId and numeric hookId; updates is a partial HookInput') but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus create or delete alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given.
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.