update_new_quiz

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Update a New Quiz's settings' without mentioning permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects, or the response format. The note that 'New Quizzes are assignments' is contextual but not behavioral. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 exactly two sentences: the first states the core purpose with examples, the second provides a critical usage distinction. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is 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?

For a complex tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides the core scope and an essential alternative for date changes. However, it does not explain the outcome of an update (e.g., response structure, whether existing settings are replaced) or any prerequisites. It is adequate but leaves some gaps.

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 the schema fully documents all 11 parameters. The description's examples (time limit, shuffle, attempts) map to existing schema properties but add no new meaning beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose: 'Update a New Quiz's settings' with specific examples (time limit, shuffle, attempts). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tool update_assignment_dates by specifying when to use that alternative for date changes. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope.

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 usage guidance: for date changes (due_at, unlock_at, lock_at), use update_assignment_dates with the assignment_id instead. This names an alternative tool and the specific condition when to use it, which is exactly the kind of when/when-not guidance the rubric rewards.

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