update_quiz_question_banks

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses partial-row failure behavior with not_found, no-op success when only the key is supplied, and required OAuth scope quizzes:write. These are meaningful operational details that an agent needs to predict outcomes and handle errors correctly.

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?

Every sentence carries operational content: scope, parameter structure, edge-case behavior, error behavior, alternative tool, and auth requirement. No filler or repetition; the most important scoping statement is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and the fact that an output schema is present, the description covers everything needed for correct invocation: required and optional parameters, key semantics, failure modes, no-op behavior, prerequisite attachment, and required scope. Nothing critical is left to guesswork.

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?

Although the input schema only defines quiz_id and an open question_banks array, the description names the required nested question_bank_id and optional order, randomize_questions, limit_question_count. It also clarifies that question_bank_id is a key reference, not an editable value. This compensates substantially for the zero schema coverage, though it could add value types or formats.

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 action ('Change how a quiz draws from banks') and pinpoints the exact scope: banks the quiz is ALREADY attached to. This immediately distinguishes it from attach-related siblings like bind_quiz_question_banks, so an agent can identify the correct operation without opening other definitions.

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?

It explicitly notes that unattached banks must first be handled with bind_quiz_question_banks, and it frames the tool as operating on existing attachments only. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, including a named alternative.

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