update_new_quiz_item

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context about rate-limiting and serial calling, which is beyond the annotations. It does not contradict any annotation, but could be more explicit about the specific modifications made.

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?

The description is concise (3 sentences), front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidance. No redundant or unnecessary information.

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 complexity (oneOf for different question types) and absence of output schema, the description is largely complete for selecting and invoking the tool. It could mention the response structure or that the item parameter varies by type, but the schema covers the input complexity adequately.

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 high (83%), with clear descriptions for most parameters. The description reinforces that all fields are optional, which is helpful for an update operation, but adds minimal additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Update'), the resource ('item (question) in a New Quiz (LTI)'), and emphasizes that all fields are optional, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_new_quiz_item' and 'delete_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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool (for updating quiz items) and important usage constraints: 'Canvas may rate-limit rapid sequential updates. Call serially (not in parallel). For >50 items, chunk and pause between batches.' This helps the agent avoid pitfalls.

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