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

Far exceeds the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=true), disclosing that obsolete persona/product/stage assignments are pruned with a reported count, historical snapshots are not rewritten, invalid saved regions require explicit replacement or null, and active text conflicts are refused. These are concrete side effects the annotations cannot convey.

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?

A single dense paragraph, front-loaded with the core purpose. Almost every sentence carries distinct behavioral information, though the return-shape sentence is somewhat redundant given the output schema exists.

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 destructive, idempotent mutation over 8 parameters, the description covers side effects, field-replacement semantics, conflict handling, and return contents. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely is missing.

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?

With 88% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics: supplied classification replaces existing fields while omission preserves them, null/[] clears, and regions null inherits scan defaults then Global. This meaningfully extends the schema descriptions for the classification fields.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope ('Restore a retired question's existing ID/text/history'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings update_prompt, get_scan_config, and list_prompts. An agent can select it without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use: an already-active question returns saved state and should instead be edited via update_prompt, and current strategy/saved-question lookups are routed to get_scan_config and list_prompts. It also clarifies it does not launch a Scan.

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