configure_quiz

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals idempotency, defaults (hidden, unlimited attempts, grade=10, method=highest), and internal slug-to-ID resolution for section_num. However, it does not clarify whether an existing quiz is updated via merge (keeping unspecified fields) or by resetting to defaults, leaving a notable ambiguity for an upsert operation.

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 four sentences, each carrying distinct value: purpose, idempotency + defaults, internal resolution, and usage workflow. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no filler or repetition of schema information.

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 complexity of a 12-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives a strong high-level overview and workflow, but it lacks details on update behavior (merge vs. overwrite), return values, and prerequisites like permissions. These gaps could confuse an agent when invoking the tool for updates or edge cases.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly maps defaults for visible (hidden), attempts (unlimited/0), grade (10), grademethod (highest), and explains that section_num is resolved by the plugin. The remaining parameters (timeopen, timeclose, timelimit_seconds) are not mentioned, but their names are reasonably self-explanatory, and the description adds significant meaning for the most critical ones.

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 opens with 'Create or update a quiz shell (no questions)' — a specific verb, resource, and a clear exclusion of question content. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like import_gift and get_quiz_questions by explicitly stating it handles the quiz shell only and pointing to publish_exam_lesson for combined functionality.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Combine with import_gift to populate questions, or use publish_exam_lesson for both in one call.' It also states idempotency by slug, signaling it can be used for both creation and updates. This clearly tells the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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