Create New Quiz Item

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

Annotations already signal mutation via destructiveHint=true, and the description adds non-obvious behavior: rate-limiting risks and the need for serial execution. It does not cover permissions or return values, but the annotation plus rate-limit context is solid.

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?

Three sentences with front-loaded purpose and no filler. Each sentence earns its place: what it does, what types it supports, and how to call it safely.

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?

The tool has a complex nested item schema and no output schema, but the description covers type support and batching guidance. It could mention return behavior or per-type requirements, but the schema handles most invocation details; a small gap around response/return value prevents a 5.

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 coverage is 80%, and the schema already documents course_id, assignment_id, points_possible, position, and nested item fields. The description names the five item types but adds little beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline without enriching parameter semantics.

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 and resource: 'Create an item (question) in a New Quiz (LTI)' and enumerates the five supported question types. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_new_quiz, update_new_quiz_item, and get_new_quiz_item.

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?

Provides clear operational guidance: Canvas may rate-limit, call serially, chunk and pause for batches over 50. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the creation scope and batching context give strong practical usage direction.

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