create-quiz-question

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

Annotations include only destructiveHint: false, which the 'create' action already conforms to. The description adds no further behavioral context such as return values, error handling, idempotency, or effects on existing data. It provides no transparency beyond the annotation, missing an opportunity to clarify that the question is appended or that the quiz must already exist.

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 a single, focused sentence: 'Create a new question in a quiz.' It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no fluff or redundant information. Every word contributes to the core purpose.

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 create operation with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It clarifies the action but doesn't explain response format, validation rules, or the necessity that the quiz already exists. The schema and annotations cover parameter details and non-destructiveness, but the absence of any behavioral or return-value context leaves some ambiguity for an agent.

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%, with clear descriptions for courseId, quizId, and question. The tool description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable since the schema already fully documents each parameter. The baseline of 3 applies because the description is not needed to compensate for schema gaps.

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 'Create a new question in a quiz' uses the specific verb 'create' and clearly identifies the resource ('new question in a quiz'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'update-quiz-question' (update), 'delete-quiz-question' (delete), and 'create-quiz' (create quiz).

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 implies usage for creating a question, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. For example, it doesn't say 'Use this to add a new question to an existing quiz' or 'To modify, use update-quiz-question.' The intent is clear but not explicitly contrasted with siblings.

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