create-quiz-question-group

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

The annotations include destructiveHint=false, which aligns with the non-destructive nature of creating. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the tool name, such as implying a new group is added without overwriting. It does not describe outcomes, prerequisite validation, or return values, but with annotations covering the safety profile, the description is acceptable.

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, tight sentence that conveys the essential function without any redundancy. It is appropriately minimal for a straightforward create operation, earning full marks for efficiency.

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 is relatively simple with three parameters, a nested object, and no output schema. The description is clear enough for an agent to invoke the tool, but it lacks guidance on expected return values or preconditions (e.g., course and quiz must exist). Given the absence of an output schema, a bit more context would improve completeness, but the current level is adequate.

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 each parameter and nested property described directly in the input schema. The description itself adds no additional parameter meaning, and the baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully documents the required fields (courseId, quizId, quizGroup with name, pick_count, question_points).

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') and the resource ('a new question group in a quiz'), with a specific verb+resource pattern. It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like update-quiz-question-group, delete-quiz-question-group, and list-quiz-question-groups by indicating the creation operation.

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 quiz question group but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., update or delete). No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, relying on the verb 'create' to convey context, which is adequate but lacks explicit guidance.

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