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

With annotations already indicating destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false, the description adds no additional behavioral context. It does not mention potential side effects like removing or replacing existing questions, or permissions required, which would be valuable beyond the annotations.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and directly states the action. However, it could be restructured to include key usage or behavioral details without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 params, no output schema, destructive nature), the description is too brief. It does not explain the update semantics (full replacement of questions?), return values, or constraints. The annotations provide some context but the description fails to fill remaining gaps.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds the phrase 'question composition' which conceptually groups the questions parameter, providing slight additional meaning. However, it does not specify how the array is applied (e.g., full replacement vs. partial update).

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 clearly states the verb 'update' and resource 'form', specifying the fields 'name' and 'question composition'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hires_update_form_question, which handles individual question edits. However, 'question composition' could be more explicit.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hires_update_form_question or hires_create_form. The description lacks context on prerequisites or conditions, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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