ghl_course_create_lesson_quiz

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

Beyond the annotations (which already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world), the description adds real behavioral context: required scope, sub-account token, and an important wire-mapping quirk ('Path lessonId is sent to membership as postId'). It stops short of saying what happens on duplicate quizzes for the same lesson or what the response contains.

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?

Front-loaded with the API group and purpose, followed by endpoint and auth. Minor redundancy: the courses.write / location-token requirement is stated three times ('Location token with courses.write', 'Requires a Sub-Account (location) token', 'OAuth scopes: courses.write').

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?

Covers auth, endpoint, path/body separation, and the nested CreateQuizDto fields are fully documented in the schema, so little is left to guess. The absence of an output schema means return values need not be described, but a hint about quiz uniqueness per lesson or the resulting quiz state would close the remaining gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning: it clarifies that productId is the course/product id (schema only says 'Product id'), that lessonId is remapped to postId internally, and that locationId/userId/productId must not appear in the body. That resolves ambiguity an agent would otherwise hit.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a quiz on a lesson') and backs it with the exact endpoint POST /courses/products/{productId}/lessons/{lessonId}/quiz, which cleanly separates it from siblings like ghl_course_update_quiz, ghl_course_delete_quiz, and ghl_course_create_lesson.

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?

It names the required auth context (Location/Sub-Account token with courses.write scope), which implicitly scopes when the tool is usable. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling quiz tools (e.g., use update_quiz for existing quizzes), but the create-vs-update distinction is strongly implied by the verb and endpoint.

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