add_simulated_quiz

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does a good job disclosing validation behavior: required existence of course_id, non-empty questions, mandatory choices for single/multi choice, reference_answer membership in choices, and multi_choice comma-separated encoding. It also clarifies grading behavior for open questions (not graded, left for self-assessment). However, it does not mention return value or explicit side effects beyond 'add'.

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 dense sentence containing purpose, mirroring detail, and all validation rules. Every clause carries essential information with no filler. It is efficient but could benefit from structured bullets for readability, so not a perfect 5.

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 validation and grading behavior extensively, but lacks a return value description (no output schema) and does not explicitly state the required fields inside each question object (stem, reference_answer) beyond what the schema provides. Given the tool's nested complexity and absence of annotations, it is adequate but leaves some gaps.

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?

Given low schema description coverage (25%), the description compensates by explaining key parameters: course_id existence, questions structure and non-emptiness, choices requirement, reference_answer semantics, and question_type handling. It adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it leaves idempotency_key and agent_skill_used to schema/other context.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: '为指定 course 添加一份模拟卷' (add a simulated quiz for the specified course), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like add_exercise or add_document. It further defines the tool as a 1:1 mirror of a REST endpoint (POST /pairs/:pairId/simulated-quizzes), reinforcing its specific purpose.

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 constraints for use (course_id must exist, questions non-empty, specific validation rules) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The '1:1 mirror' reference implies a direct mapping but offers no comparative guidance against sibling tools.

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