Update the status (required/optional/hidden) of a question inside a form.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | Question visibility on this form: required, optional, or hidden. | |
| form_id | Yes | Form ID. | |
| question_id | Yes | Question ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, matching the 'update' action. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., reversibility, permission requirements, side effects). Since annotations carry the safety profile, the description provides minimal extra transparency.
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 concise sentence that communicates the tool's purpose without extraneous information. Every word is necessary and front-loaded.
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 simple update tool with only three required parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the action. However, it could mention that this tool only affects the form-question status relationship, not the question object itself, to provide more context.
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?
The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description reiterates the status parameter's enum values but adds no additional meaning or context beyond what the schema already specifies. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description explicitly states the verb 'update', the resource 'status of a question inside a form', and lists allowed statuses ('required/optional/hidden'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like hires_create_question (creates new question) and hires_update_question (updates question content).
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 implies usage when changing question visibility in a form but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like hires_update_question (which modifies the question itself) or hires_update_form (which updates broader form settings). No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
