start_quiz

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation nature is clear. The description adds the behavioral trait 'puede activar inmediatamente un temporizador' (may immediately activate a timer), which is useful and not in the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose other consequences, such as whether the attempt can be retaken or what happens if a timer already exists. Given the annotations cover the safety profile, the added timer context justifies a 3.

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 sentence, so it is concise with no fluff. However, it is under-specified for a tool with 5 parameters and a destructive action, so the brevity is not appropriate. It could include more details while still being concise. It is not overly verbose, but it doesn't earn its place by providing useful information.

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, no output schema, and a destructive action, the description is extremely incomplete. It provides no explanation of required inputs (confirmation_token), optional flags (force_new), or what 'previsualizado' means in practice. It lacks usage context and potential side effects beyond the timer. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly based on this description alone.

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 information about any of the 5 parameters (quiz_id, force_new, preflight_data, course_module_id, confirmation_token). With low schema coverage, the description must compensate but doesn't even mention confirmation_token as a required security token or explain the role of force_new. This is a critical deficiency.

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 action: 'Inicia el intento previsualizado' (starts the previewed attempt), which clearly identifies the verb and resource (the quiz attempt). It distinguishes from related tools like preview_start_quiz by mentioning 'previsualizado' (previewed), but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is clear enough from the name and description.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as preview_start_quiz or when not to use it. It lacks any mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a previewed attempt) or conditions for using force_new or confirmation_token. This is a significant gap for an action that triggers a destructive change.

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