finalize_quiz

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core write actions and explains why they are needed (Canvas leaves counts stale). However, it does not mention permissions, idempotency, or any side effects beyond the stated updates.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every word earns its place. No fluff or redundant 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?

The tool has 3 parameters with zero schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains why and when to run but leaves intro_html semantics and return behavior entirely undefined, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke without additional hints.

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%, and the description provides no explanation for any parameter, including the optional intro_html. The phrase 'description summary' might relate to a parameter but is not explicit, leaving the agent without any parameter guidance.

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 two specific actions: rewrites the description summary and refreshes stale counts, and it names the exact fields (question_count, points_possible). This distinguishes it from sibling quiz tools like create_quiz, get_quiz, and add_quiz_questions.

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 explicitly says 'so this runs after the questions are in,' providing a clear sequencing context. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, but the pipeline position is clear enough to guide usage.

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