Delete New Quiz

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds 'This action is permanent,' reinforcing destructive behavior, but offers no further context on side effects (e.g., cascading deletions, impact on grades). The LTI clarification and assignment_id hint are useful but not deep behavioral disclosure. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences with all key information front-loaded: action, resource, permanence, and identifier clarification. No redundant words or filler; every element earns its place.

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 simple delete tool with two required parameters and annotations covering destructive/idempotent behavior, the description covers the essentials: what is deleted, permanence, and the critical identifier distinction. There is no output schema, so return-value documentation isn't needed. It lacks mention of downstream effects, but those are not required for basic invocation.

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 100% with both parameters described, so the baseline is 3. The description adds crucial meaning by clarifying that assignment_id (not quiz_id) is the correct identifier for this New Quiz deletion, which is not evident from the schema alone. This lifts the score to 4.

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 action ('Delete a New Quiz (LTI) from a Canvas course'), specifies the resource type (New Quiz), and differentiates it from siblings like delete_assignment and delete_new_quiz_item. It also explicitly notes the correct identifier (assignment_id not quiz_id), which distinguishes it from quiz-related tools.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives. It only hints usage via the tool name and 'New Quiz (LTI)' context. The 'Use assignment_id (not quiz_id)' note is parameter selection guidance rather than usage direction, leaving an agent to infer when to choose this over delete_assignment or delete_new_quiz_item.

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