log_quiz_result

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals the key side effect: updating mastery confidence and wrong count. It does not mention reversibility, prerequisites, or failure modes, but the primary behavior is clearly disclosed.

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, front-loaded, and every sentence provides relevant information without redundancy or filler.

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 simple 3-parameter tool with a clear side effect, the description is fairly complete. It lacks a mention of return values or preconditions, but given the simplicity and schema coverage, it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% with all three parameters described in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-specific detail, so it does not go beyond the structured fields.

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 ('Log a quiz or quick-check result for a concept') and the effect on mastery. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like log_topic or record_study_session by focusing specifically on assessment results.

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 for logging quiz/quick-check outcomes and explains the resulting mastery update. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, especially relative to sibling tools like record_study_session or log_topic.

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