Native speaker here – American English (New England, Boston area).
I may be grasping at phantoms here, but I have a very faint impression that when one uses "would always", it implies "on those occasions on which that person would do this thing, they always elected to do it in the following way", while, in contrast, "was always" implies that the person (or thing) so described was multiplying occasions to do the thing.
That is, using your examples,
She would always send me strange birthday gifts.
Suggests to me that on the occasion of your birthday, she could be relied upon to choose gifts that were strange, while
She was always sending me strange birthday gifts.
would suggest that she wasn't waiting for your birthday to send those strange dirthday gifts!
Likewise,
Sam and Mary would always choose the most exotic vacation destinations.
suggests that Sam and Mary's vacation destination choices were consistently exotic, while
Sam and Mary were always choosing the most exotic vacation destinations.
suggests that Sam and Mary have a very, very busy vacation calendar.
This
Ned would always show up at our house without calling first.
suggests that it was Ned's custom to drop by without calling first, while
Ned was always showing up at our house without calling first.
suggests Ned is making a serious nuisance of himself by imposing on us so very frequently. (Note that in this example, the "was always" formulation has a much strong negative valence than the comparative "would always.)
The difference, I think, is that used this was "was always" is hyperbole, while "would always" is merely a generalization.
Your description of "was always" + verb as implying a negative is correct, but it doesn't explain how that works. It is using hyperbole, which is a figure of speech which conveys valence by exaggeration. When someone says of someone "he was always doing that thing!" it is not usually meant literally; it is meant as exaggeration for effect.
In contrast, "would always" may well be meant literally, or close to literally. When somebody says "he would always do that thing!" they may well mean "whenever he did a thing, it would be that thing!"
By way of illustration: I had a friend who would always be late to parties. Famously so. Like, numerous times he arrived at parties when the last of the rest of the guests were saying good-bye to the hosts. Once, story has it, he showed up the day after the party. Yet I wouldn't say of him that he was always being late to parties because he didn't go to parties all that often. It wasn't like his life was full of party-going, only late. But, by gum, when he went to parties, he would be late; you could bank on it. So my saying of him that he would always be late to parties was perfectly, incontestably, literally true.
Best Answer
While I would understand "I did a math test in school." I would never say that, nor would I say "I did a test with the car". and I would think it a bit odd if anyone else said either.
For tests where I (or the person) is having ability tested, i would always use "take". I might use it for any sort of test.
For a medical test, where the person doesn't really do anything but show up and let the doctor or technician perform the test, I would most often use "had" or perhaps "got"
I might also use "was given" or "they gave me" a test.
If I am the one performing the test, I would probably say something like:
If I am performing the test, and I want to name a specific test, I might use "did"
I would be more likely to use that form in a professional or technical context, where the details of the test are likely to be discussed.
I don't say that "did" is wrong in other contexts, but it does seem unusual to me.