edubase_post_quiz_settings

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

The description hints at a partial-update behavior with the word 'individual,' implying that only the specified settings are changed and others remain intact. Annotations already convey that the operation is not read-only and not destructive, so the description adds a little context beyond annotations. Still, it does not clearly explain what happens to omitted settings or any validation/error behavior, so it stops at a 3.

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 terse sentence without filler and the core action is front-loaded. It is concise, though it is so short that it lacks some of the context needed for full usability, preventing a perfect score.

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 presence of several close sibling tools (get/put/patch quiz settings) and conditional parameter behavior (e.g., roundtime only for turn-based quizzes), the description is not complete enough for an agent to confidently select and invoke this tool. It omits side effects, prerequisites, and how it differs from put/patch variants, leaving important gaps.

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 covers all 6 parameters with detailed descriptions, achieving 100% schema_description_coverage. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear action and object: 'Change individual settings of a Quiz set.' It is easy to understand what the tool does at a high level. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools such as edubase_put_quiz_settings or edubase_patch_quiz_settings, so it lacks the sibling differentiation needed for a 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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus the many sibling settings tools (e.g., edubase_get_quiz_settings, edubase_put_quiz_settings, edubase_patch_quiz_settings). There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or conditions under which this POST variant is preferred.

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