preview_save_quiz_answers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety. It does add the behavioral detail that it 'previews exact fields and values,' which hints at the output type. But it does not disclose other aspects like error handling, required permissions, or the relationship to the attempt state beyond the annotation-covered safety profile.

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 delivers the core message without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and immediately clarifies the non-destructive nature. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately concise.

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 tool with four parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It omits guidance on how parameters interact, what the preview output actually contains, and any usage constraints beyond not saving. An agent would struggle to correctly form parameters like responses or preflight_data without additional documentation.

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 mentions no parameter names, types, or meanings. With four parameters including nested objects (responses and preflight_data), the description provides zero semantic help, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of natural-language explanations.

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 verb ('preview') and resource ('exact fields and values' of quiz answers) and explicitly distinguishes it from a saving action with 'never saves answers in the attempt.' This aligns with the sibling save_quiz_answers tool and makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 'never saves answers' implies safe, non-committal use: call it when you want to inspect what would be saved without making changes. However, it does not explicitly reference the alternate save_quiz_answers tool or state conditions for choosing this over the real save, leaving usage guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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