import_gift

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses important traits: it creates questions in a bank category, appends to quiz slots by default, and is idempotent with deduplication by question name. This provides useful behavioral context beyond a simple import statement, though it does not specify whether existing questions are updated or skipped.

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 that front-load the primary purpose, then add the key behavioral details (default append and idempotency). Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 description covers the core behavior and default option, and the schema fills in most parameter details. Missing are explicit return values or error behavior, but for an import tool with no output schema, the current information is likely sufficient for correct invocation.

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 descriptions cover 4 of 5 parameters (80%), leaving only course_id without a description. The description mentions the bank category and quiz slots but does not add meaningful syntax or interplay details beyond what the schema already states for append and category_name.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Import GIFT-formatted questions into a quiz') and adds context about creating questions in a bank category and appending them to quiz slots. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like modify_question or get_quiz_questions.

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 the use case for importing GIFT text into a quiz but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. No contrast with tools like configure_quiz or modify_question is given, making the guidance implied rather than explicit.

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