delete_new_quiz_itemPermanently delete a specific question from a Canvas New Quiz using course, assignment, and item IDs to update quiz content.
Delete an item (question) from a New Quiz (LTI). This action is permanent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item_id | Yes | The New Quiz item ID (string, not numeric) | |
| course_id | Yes | The Canvas course ID | |
| assignment_id | Yes | The assignment ID of the New Quiz |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.18.11Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v1.18.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds 'This action is permanent,' which reinforces irreversibility beyond the annotation, and clarifies the LTI context. No contradiction with annotations. Given annotations, the description adds useful context without redundancy.
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 sentences, no filler. The action verb and resource are front-loaded, and the permanence warning is a single extra phrase. Every word 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 operation with three well-documented parameters and annotations covering destructive behavior, the description is complete. It doesn't describe the return value, but for a delete that typically returns a success indicator, this is not a critical gap. The description is sufficient for an agent to call it 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 100%: every parameter (item_id, course_id, assignment_id) has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 (Delete) and a specific resource (an item/question from a New Quiz LTI). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool delete_new_quiz, which deletes the entire quiz, and from create/update/get/list_new_quiz_item tools. The action is unambiguous.
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 gives clear context: it is for deleting a single item from a New Quiz, and it explicitly notes the LTI variant. It does not mention exclusions or name alternatives, but the tool name and description make the appropriate use case obvious. A slightly higher score would require explicit 'when-not' guidance, but the clarity is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.