edubase_put_quiz_settings

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses precisely what is copied and what is kept: only configuration is copied, questions and question groups are not, and the target's question selection, filtering, and export settings remain. This is valuable behavioral context not available from the structured fields.

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 front-load the primary action and then provide necessary scope limitations. There is no filler; each sentence adds distinct information about what is replaced, copied, or preserved.

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?

With an output schema present, only two simple parameters, and annotations covering mutability and idempotency, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and understand the side effects. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly naming the patch/post alternatives, but that gap is minor.

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 already provides 100% parameter description coverage, including the roles of 'quiz' as the target and 'source' as the quiz to copy settings from, with the constraint that they must differ. The description reinforces this but does not add substantive new parameter-level meaning, so the 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 opens with a specific action: 'Replace the complete configuration of a Quiz set' with the configuration of another Quiz set, making the verb, resource, and scope unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from partial-update siblings such as edubase_patch_quiz_settings by emphasizing 'complete' and clarifies that questions and question groups are not affected.

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 makes the use case clear: copy an entire quiz configuration from one quiz to another while preserving target question selection, filtering, and export settings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the 'complete replacement' framing provides enough context for an agent to select it over the patch/post siblings.

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