quiz_video_update_templateUpdate an existing template. Any subset of fields may be supplied; omitted fields stay unchanged.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| isPublic | No | ||
| template | No | ||
| isDefault | No | ||
| thumbnail | No | ||
| templateId | Yes | ||
| description | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that omitted fields stay unchanged, which is a key behavioral trait beyond the annotations. Annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, so the description adds useful context without contradicting them.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and then adding the key partial-update behavior. 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 an update tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description captures the essential behavior (partial update) but omits details like error handling for invalid templateId or the nature of the nested 'template' object. Overall, it is sufficient for basic use but not exhaustive.
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 0%, so the description carries the burden. The statement 'any subset of fields may be supplied' provides general optionality, but it does not explain individual parameters, especially the nested 'template' object. This is adequate but not rich.
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's action with a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing template'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create/delete/get template. The additional partial-update semantics further clarify its specific role.
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 for when to use the tool (updating an existing template) and indicates that any subset of fields can be supplied. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is self-evident within the sibling family.
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.