start_quiz_attempt

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

The description adds critical behavior beyond the annotations: setting dry_run=False is irreversible and consumes one of the quiz's limited attempts. It also discloses that the operation is unverified against a real quiz and requires a prerequisite access check. These details complement, rather than contradict, destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false.

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 front-loaded with the action, immediately followed by the irreversible warning and prerequisite check. Every sentence contributes essential safety or workflow information, with no redundant exposition.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with an output schema, the description covers the key missing pieces: irreversibility, attempt consumption, prerequisite validation, and the required dry-run confirmation sequence. Nothing essential for correct invocation is omitted.

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 both quiz_id and dry_run are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the dry_run workflow and irreversibility, but does not add substantive new parameter semantics beyond the existing schema descriptions. This fits the baseline of 3 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 states a specific verb and resource: starting a new quiz attempt. It is clearly distinct from sibling quiz tools such as get_quiz_access_information, save_quiz_attempt_responses, and process_quiz_attempt. An agent can identify the action without opening 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?

It explicitly tells the agent to call get_quiz_access_information first and check canattempt/preventaccessreasons. It also gives a precise dry-run workflow: preview with dry_run=True, show the user, and only then call with dry_run=False after explicit confirmation.

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