Update New Quiz Item

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

The description adds useful behavior beyond the annotations: rate-limit risk, serial-call requirement, and batching guidance. It also clarifies partial-update semantics with 'supply only what changes.' It does not describe the response or destructive consequences in detail, but the destructiveHint annotation already covers mutation risk.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, partial-update semantics, and rate-limit/batching guidance. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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?

The description covers the operation, partial-update behavior, and practical rate-limit mitigation. The complex oneOf item schema is well-documented in the schema itself. It does not describe the return value or error cases, and no output schema exists, which is a minor gap for a mutation tool.

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 high (83%), so the schema carries most parameter meaning. The description adds the partial-update concept of 'supply only what changes,' which is useful, but 'All fields are optional' is ambiguous and conflicts with the schema's required course_id, assignment_id, and item_id.

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 and resource: 'Update an existing item (question) in a New Quiz (LTI).' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like create_new_quiz_item, delete_new_quiz_item, and get_new_quiz_item without needing to open the schema.

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 clear operational guidance: all fields are optional, supply only changes, call serially, and chunk/pause for >50 items. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but 'existing item' implies the boundary against create/delete siblings.

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