aeroedu_block_add_quiz

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only, not destructive, and not idempotent. The description adds that scores auto-record to GradeBook, which is useful. However, it does not clarify idempotency (multiple calls may create duplicate blocks) or other side effects like whether it modifies existing blocks. This insufficient explanation beyond annotations results in a score of 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 two sentences, immediately stating the main action and key details. Every sentence adds value: purpose, prerequisite, and outcome. No wasted words, well front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, full schema coverage, annotations present), the description covers the primary behavior and important context. However, it does not explain return values or detailed behavior for parameters like position or required, leaving minor gaps. No output schema exists, so more explanation would be beneficial.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, such as noting the source of exam_id and that title is optional. Since the schema already provides detailed explanations, the description does not significantly enhance understanding, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 'Gắn' (attach) and the resources 'đề thi/quiz' and 'bài học' (lesson). It distinguishes from sibling block add tools (lab, pdf, video) which add different content types. The specific outcome (automatically recording to GradeBook) further clarifies purpose.

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 explicitly instructs to use 'exam_id từ aeroedu_exam_create', implying a prerequisite. It is clear that this tool should be used after creating an exam and a lesson. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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