finish_quiz

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds the precondition that the attempt must be the exact one previewed, which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't clarify the 'normalmente' exception or any other side effects, so it only modestly enhances transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and irreversibility warning. It contains no filler, but it is so brief that it sacrifices informational content for brevity, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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 5 parameters (including required confirmation_token and attempt_id), no output schema, and zero parameter documentation in the description, an agent would have no idea how to properly invoke the tool. The description fails to cover essential runtime details like the confirmation_token's origin or the role of preflight_data.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of any of the 5 parameters (attempt_id, confirmation_token, time_up, responses, preflight_data). The only hint is 'intento exacto' which might relate to attempt_id, but it's too vague to meaningfully compensate for the total absence of parameter documentation.

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 specific verb ('Finaliza') and a clear resource ('el intento exacto ya previsualizado'), making it obvious that this tool finalizes a quiz attempt. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the reference to 'previsualizado' distinguishes it from start_quiz or save_quiz_answers.

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 phrase 'ya previsualizado' implies that a preview step (e.g., preview_finish_quiz) must have occurred, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no statement of when not to use the tool. The intended usage sequence is only weakly implied.

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