Update New Quiz

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

The annotations already carry the safety profile (idempotent, destructive, open world), so the description is not obligated to repeat those. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond 'update'—for example, whether updating a published quiz immediately affects student visibility or whether omitted fields are left unchanged. Because it contributes no extra behavioral transparency, it lands below the with-annotations baseline.

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?

One short sentence contains the action, resource type, and LTI context. No filler or repetition of schema details. 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 9-parameter schema and the annotations, the core invocation information is available, and required IDs are declared in the schema. However, there is no output schema and the description does not mention the return value or side effects such as published-quiz visibility. It is minimally sufficient but not complete for a mutation tool of this complexity.

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?

All 9 parameters have schema descriptions, so the schema carries the semantics. The description itself names no parameters and adds no formatting or null-clearing guidance beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is 100%.

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?

Uses the specific verb 'Update' and names the exact resource 'existing New Quiz (LTI)', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_new_quiz and update_assignment. The parenthetical LTI adds useful context for the Canvas New Quizzes feature. No ambiguity about what the tool acts on.

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 the implied context that the quiz already exists, but it never explicitly states when to choose this over create_new_quiz, update_assignment, or update_new_quiz_item. There are no exclusions or alternative-tool conditions, so the agent must infer usage from the name and siblings. This is adequate but not explicit.

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