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

Annotations already declare the tool is destructive (destructiveHint=true) and read-write (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds minimal context about what gets changed (name and question composition) but does not disclose whether existing questions are replaced, whether partial updates are allowed, or what the response contains. Since annotations carry the safety burden, this does not contradict them, but it adds limited behavioral nuance.

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 sentence conveys the core action and target. It is concise and front-loaded with the verb and resource. There is no redundancy or fluff. However, it is so short that it omits details that might be expected, but it remains efficient.

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?

With three parameters, no output schema, and destructive annotations, the description is insufficiently detailed. It does not explain that 'id' is required, that 'questions' is optional, or what happens to existing questions when updating (replace vs. append). The agent lacks guidance on the exact behavior and outcome, making the tool hard to use correctly without external knowledge.

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 only 33% (only 'questions' has a description). The description clarifies that 'name' and 'questions' are the updatable fields, mapping to the schema parameters, but does not elaborate on the 'id' parameter or the meaning of 'question composition' beyond what the schema already provides (array of numbers). It partially compensates for the low coverage but leaves ambiguity about whether 'questions' replaces or appends.

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 the action ('Update') and the target resource ('a form'), and specifies the two aspects being modified: 'name and question composition'. This clearly distinguishes it from create/delete/get form tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives. It is specific enough for an agent to identify the tool's purpose.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'hires_create_form' or 'hires_update_form_question'. It does not mention that this tool replaces the entire question set, nor does it describe prerequisites or typical use cases. An agent must infer usage from the schema and context.

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