update-quiz-question-group

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

The annotation idempotentHint: true already indicates idempotency, but the description adds no behavioral details beyond that. It does not specify whether the update replaces the entire quizGroup object or merges with existing fields, nor does it mention error conditions or permissions. Since the annotation covers the safety profile, the description provides minimal extra value.

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 sentence, direct and front-loaded with the action verb. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it highly concise.

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 simple update tool with a rich schema and idempotency annotation, the description is minimal but not entirely inadequate. However, it fails to clarify whether the quizGroup object requires all fields or only changed fields, which is a meaningful gap. No output schema exists, so return value explanation is not expected.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; it merely names the action without elaborating on the quizGroup object or its fields.

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 tool's function: 'Update an existing question group in a quiz.' It uses a specific verb ('update') and resource ('question group'), and the word 'existing' distinguishes it from creating or deleting a group. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like create-quiz-question-group and delete-quiz-question-group.

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 modifying an already-existing question group, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so the agent must infer context from the tool name and sibling list.

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