edubase_patch_quiz

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

Annotations already provide the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description should add behavioral context beyond that. It does not disclose partial-update semantics, the effect of empty values (covered only in the schema, not the description), or any authorization requirements. The only addition is the word 'existing,' which is a precondition rather than a behavioral disclosure.

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, direct sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, and every word contributes to the core message. It is concise without sacrificing clarity at the sentence level.

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 patch operation with six parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally viable but omits tool-level conventions such as whether the update is partial (only provided fields are changed) or full replacement. The rich schema and annotations compensate for many gaps, but an agent may still lack a clear operational picture, especially when choosing between this and quiz_settings tools.

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?

The input schema provides 100% description coverage, including detailed meanings for each parameter such as empty-value removal and organization move conditions. This baseline of 3 is appropriate because the description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already documents.

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 identifies the action (update) and resource (Quiz set), and the word 'existing' tells the agent this tool is for an already-created quiz, not for creation. However, it does not name or distinguish itself from sibling tools like edubase_patch_quiz_settings or edubase_post_quiz, leaving some ambiguity about the exact scope of 'details'.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies the quiz must already exist, but it does not mention related operations like patch_quiz_settings for settings or post_quiz for creating a new quiz, so an agent is left without clear selection criteria.

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