quiz_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the 'confirm' requirement, which hints at a safety or approval mechanism, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like whether this is a read/write operation, potential side effects, error handling, or rate limits. For a tool that likely creates content, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately sized with a brief overview and parameter details. However, it's not optimally front-loaded—the key requirement about 'confirm' is in the first sentence but could be emphasized more. The structure is clear but slightly verbose in listing all parameters without grouping related ones.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description covers parameter semantics well but lacks behavioral context. It's adequate for basic usage but incomplete for a tool that likely involves content creation and user approval, missing details on permissions or output format.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for all parameters: 'notebook_id' as a UUID, 'source_ids' as source IDs with a default, 'question_count' as number of questions with a default, 'difficulty' as a level with a default, and 'confirm' with a specific usage condition. This goes beyond the bare schema, though it could provide more detail on ranges or formats.

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 verb 'Generate' and resource 'quiz', making the purpose specific. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other content creation siblings like 'flashcards_create' or 'infographic_create' beyond the quiz focus, which is a minor gap.

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 context for the 'confirm' parameter ('after user approval'), which implies when to use this tool—after obtaining user consent. It doesn't specify alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance on user approval is clear and practical.

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