ghl_course_update_quiz

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description adds real context beyond them: required OAuth scope, Sub-Account token requirement, explicit endpoint and API version. It stops short of saying whether omitted body fields are left untouched or cleared, which is the main behavioral question for a partial-update endpoint.

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 key scoping fact is front-loaded, but the text repeats itself: "Update Quiz" then "Update a quiz", and the auth requirement appears twice ("Location token with courses.write" and "Requires a Sub-Account (location) token. OAuth scopes: courses.write"). Tightening to two sentences would lose nothing.

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?

For a mutation endpoint with all four parameters required, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers auth, API version, endpoint path, and path-parameter meaning. The remaining gap is update semantics (partial merge vs. full replace) and what the response returns, neither of which is stated.

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, and the description earns that by clarifying that productId is the course id rather than a product record id — an important disambiguation. It adds nothing about quizId or the body DTO fields, but those are already documented in the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Update a quiz") and disambiguates the ambiguous parameter name by declaring that {productId} is the course (product) id, which is genuinely useful given the sibling product tools. It does not, however, distinguish this from the adjacent quiz siblings such as ghl_course_upsert_quiz_questions, ghl_course_delete_quiz, or ghl_course_get_lesson_quiz.

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?

Prerequisites are spelled out (Location/Sub-Account token, courses.write scope, Version: v3 header), which helps the agent decide whether it can call it at all. But there is no guidance on when this is the right tool versus the quiz-questions upsert or lesson-quiz variants, so selection among siblings is left to inference.

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