Update text, type, or options of an existing question definition.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Question ID | |
| text | Yes | Question text | |
| type | Yes | Question type (from hires_list_question_types) | |
| options | No | Answer options (for select/multiselect question types) |
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 indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as whether the update is partial or full replacement, or the impact on dependent forms. Minimal extra value beyond 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?
A single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. No wasted words; perfectly sized for quick comprehension.
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?
Missing key context: no output schema info (what does the response contain?), no clarification that text and type are always required even if only updating options, and no distinction from hires_update_form_question. Incomplete for a mutation tool with 4 parameters.
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 well-documented. The description reiterates 'text, type, or options' but adds no new semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description does not compensate beyond schema.
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 tool updates an existing question definition and specifies the attributes (text, type, options) that can be modified. It distinguishes from create/delete tools, but could be more explicit about requiring an existing ID.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like hires_update_form_question or hires_create_question. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., question must exist) or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
