canvas_create_classic_quiz

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive (destructiveHint=true) and non-read-only. The description adds valuable context beyond this: the restriction to Classic Quizzes, the requirement for an approved course, and the need for explicit confirmation. It does not contradict the annotations and enriches behavioral understanding.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds distinct information (what it does, limitation, requirement). No filler or repetition; it is highly efficient.

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 tool complexity (6 params, no output schema), the description covers the core behavioral aspects: what is created, the Classic vs New distinction, and the confirmation requirement. It omits specifics about return values or quiz_type nuances, but these are secondary to the main purpose and reasonably supplemented by the schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meanings. It only references the 'confirmation' parameter and indirectly references course_id via 'approved course', but leaves title, published, quiz_type, and description without any added context. This is insufficient for a tool with 6 parameters where the schema alone provides limited guidance.

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: 'Create exactly one Canvas Classic Quiz'. It specifies the resource type (Canvas Classic Quiz) with the verb 'create', and distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly stating it is for Classic Quizzes, not New Quizzes, and from quiz_question by focusing on the quiz itself.

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 context: the tool works only in an 'approved course', is for Classic Quizzes (not New Quizzes), and 'requires explicit confirmation'. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for other quiz types or when not to use this tool, leaving a small gap.

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