edubase_post_quiz_settings

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

Annotations already mark the operation as non-read-only and non-idempotent; the description adds useful behavior beyond that: it is a partial update rather than a full replacement, and it states that the updated settings are returned. There is no contradiction with the annotations, though side-effect scope like permission requirements or follow-up effects is not covered.

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?

Three short sentences carry the purpose, partial-update behavior, return value, and the relevant helper tool. There is no filler, and the most important information 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?

For a six-parameter mutation tool, the description plus fully documented schema and output schema cover what an agent needs to invoke it correctly: required quiz identifier, optional settings, grading-preset source, and return behavior. It is slightly incomplete only in not routing around the patch/put quiz-settings siblings.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds only a high-level orientation and the grading-preset source, without providing meaning beyond the schema fields; this matches the baseline for fully documented schemas.

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 names a specific verb ('Change'), a resource ('individual settings of a Quiz set'), and enumerates the affected settings: shuffling, time limits, grading, and grading threshold. It clearly states what the tool does, but it does not distinguish this operation from the sibling tools edubase_patch_quiz_settings and edubase_put_quiz_settings, so it earns 4 rather than 5.

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 implies partial-update usage ('Only the given settings are changed') and points to edubase_get_quiz_grading_presets as a prerequisite for grading values. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over the similar patch/put quiz-settings siblings, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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