update_quiz_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses critical behavior: 'Only include fields you want to change' indicates a partial update (PATCH) semantics, preserving omitted fields. It also explains the timing for scoring_data updates. It does not cover return values or permissions, but the core mutational behavior is well conveyed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and directly addresses usage. The second sentence packs important behavioral and workflow details without unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool has 11 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the primary use case and the most important behavioral nuance (partial update), and it leverages the schema's comprehensive parameter descriptions for the rest. It doesn't explain interactions between scoring_data and interaction_data or edge cases, but for a typical update flow it is reasonably complete.

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?

The input schema already describes all 11 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifically highlighting the role of scoring_data in the create-then-update workflow and clarifying that only included fields are changed. This goes beyond the schema's generic descriptions, justifying a 4.

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 'Update an existing question (item) in a New Quiz', which combines a specific verb (update) with a specific resource (question in a New Quiz). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_quiz_item, delete_quiz_item, and get_quiz_item. It also adds the key detail that only included fields are changed, reinforcing the update purpose.

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 explicit usage context: 'Commonly used after create_quiz_item to set the correct answer IDs in scoring_data once the choice IDs are known.' This prescribes a workflow and indicates when to use this tool relative to creation. It lacks explicit exclusions or mention of alternatives, but the provided scenario is detailed and actionable.

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