save_quiz_answers

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds that it saves without finishing the attempt, which clarifies it is not a final submission. Beyond that, it does not mention side effects like overwriting previous answers, the purpose of confirmation_token, or any irreversible consequences. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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, concise sentence with no filler words, and the core action is front-loaded. It is appropriately short, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose, so it earns a 4 rather than 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?

This is a mutation tool with destructiveHint=true, a confirmation_token, and nested objects, yet the description provides no information about the confirmation token's role, the structure of responses, or the effect of page/preflight_data. Given the complexity and absence of an output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool 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% and the description gives no information about any of the five parameters (attempt_id, responses, confirmation_token, page, preflight_data). Since the schema itself lacks descriptions, the description must compensate, but it fails entirely, leaving the agent to guess parameter meanings and formats.

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 a specific verb ('save') and resource ('the exact already-previewed answers') with the qualifier 'without finishing the attempt,' which distinguishes it from finish_quiz. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling preview_save_quiz_answers or differentiate from it beyond context, so it misses the explicit distinctness of a 5.

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 after previewing answers and before finishing, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like preview_save_quiz_answers or finish_quiz. It lacks direct 'use when' or 'instead of' phrasing, so it offers only implied context without exclusions.

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