create_question_banks

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

The annotation flags (readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint all false) say little, so the description carries the transparency burden and delivers: batch semantics, the post-condition that a new bank is 'EMPTY and bound to nothing,' and the required 'question-banks:write' OAuth scope. It matches the annotations (a create operation is correctly not readOnly) and adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond 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?

Four compact sentences: purpose, per-item parameter contract, post-creation workflow, and auth scope. Each sentence earns its place and the critical purpose is front-loaded before the workflow detail.

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 single-parameter create operation with an output schema present, the description covers the essentials: what it does, the batch behavior, the exact item shape, the follow-up steps, and the permission required. Nothing critical is missing; the only minor gap is implicit partial-failure behavior for a multi-item batch, which is not disclosed.

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 schema itself is thin ('additionalProperties': true on item objects), so the description must compensate — and it does by specifying that each item takes a single required attribute, name, with a max of 500. This materially narrows the agent's uncertainty about the runtime contract, though a concrete item shape example or explicit note that extra properties are rejected would have pushed it to a 5.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Create one or more question banks' — and immediately flags the batch nature of the operation. It is clearly differentiated from its siblings (list_question_banks, get_question_bank, update_question_banks, delete_question_banks) and from create_questions, which the description itself references for the next step.

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 gives an explicit workflow: create banks here, then add items with create_questions and question_bank_id, then attach to a quiz with bind_quiz_question_banks. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool relative to update/delete variants, but the workflow context tells an agent exactly where this tool sits in the lifecycle.

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