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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description adds no extra behavioral context such as reversibility, side effects, or permission requirements. The description only restates the action, providing no value 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, clear sentence with no waste. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify what form_id and question_id refer to, nor does it describe the response or any side effects beyond the destructive hint already in annotations. The description is minimally viable but leaves the agent to infer critical details.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters. It only mentions the status enum, which is already in the schema. No compensation is made for the missing parameter documentation.

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 action (set a question's status) and the resource (a form), and it enumerates the allowed statuses. It is not a tautology and is distinct from siblings like hires_update_form or hires_update_question, though it does not explicitly differentiate them.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hires_update_form or hires_update_question. The context implies it is for modifying the status of a question within a form, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use.

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