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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds meaningful context the annotations cannot: PATCH semantics, that questionId is immutable, and that isActive:false hides the question from the form while preserving past answers — clarifying that this particular "destructive" action is actually a soft-hide.

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?

Three tight sentences, each earning its place, with the core edit semantics front-loaded before the isActive nuance. No filler.

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 tool with a destructive hint and no output schema, the description covers patch behavior and the key isActive side effect well. But with 9 parameters at 0% schema coverage, it is not complete enough — the effect of changing fieldType (e.g., breaking existing answers) and the role of options/isReference are unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 0% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only explains isActive (and the immutability of questionId); label, options, helpText, required, fieldType, and isReference are left entirely to the bare schema, leaving most parameter behavior undocumented.

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 and resource ("Edit a booking question") and flags the Pro tier. It is clearly distinguishable from create_booking_question, delete_booking_question, and list_booking_questions by the update verb, though it never names these siblings directly.

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?

"Omitted fields are left unchanged" establishes partial-update (PATCH) semantics, which tells the agent to send only changed fields. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over delete_booking_question or create_booking_question, or on prerequisites/alternatives.

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