Update New Quiz

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether this is a partial update (omitted fields unchanged), whether the destructive hint means overwriting quiz settings, or that null values clear due/lock dates.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding, which is well-formed. It is arguably too terse for a nine-parameter mutation tool, but the length itself is not the problem.

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 mutation tool with full schema coverage, covered annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits update semantics (partial vs. full replacement), what the destructive/idempotent hints mean in practice, and any permission or LTI-specific caveats that would materially change how an agent calls it.

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%, so all nine parameters (including the null-to-clear semantics for due_at, lock_at and unlock_at) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning on top of that, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

States a specific verb ('Update') and a specific resource ('an existing New Quiz (LTI) in a Canvas course'), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the adjacent sibling 'update_new_quiz_item', which an agent could easily confuse for the same operation.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. the quiz must already exist, permissions required), and no routing to or away from alternatives such as 'create_new_quiz' or 'update_new_quiz_item'. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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