save_quiz

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses validation rules (options required for multiple_choice, answer must be one of them) and the return behavior (stored questions with ids). It does not mention side effects or failure modes, but the disclosed information is valuable and goes beyond the schema.

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 two sentences with no filler. The main purpose is stated first, followed by essential parameter constraints and return behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool has 2 parameters and an output schema, and the description covers the critical input structure and return value. It does not mention whether document_id must exist or error conditions, but for a straightforward save operation this is sufficient. An agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does this well for 'questions' by detailing required fields and constraints. 'document_id' is only implicitly covered as the target document, but that is adequate given its self-explanatory name. The description adds meaning the schema lacks.

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 (save), the resource (quiz questions), and the target (a document). It distinguishes from the sibling save_flashcards by explicitly naming quiz questions, so an agent can route correctly without ambiguity.

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 usage context by specifying the exact structure for quiz questions, and the sibling tool names make it clear save_quiz is for quizzes vs flashcards. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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