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

The annotations already supply the relevant safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), and the description adds no detail beyond restating the mutation, such as whether the update overwrites all fields, how type changes affect existing options, or any authorization requirements. It is consistent with the annotations but does not disclose behavior beyond them.

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 11-word sentence with the action verb front-loaded and no filler, repetition, or duplication of structured data. It earns its place and is easy to scan.

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 4-parameter mutation, the schema covers required fields and the type-value source, and annotations flag destructiveness, so the description is minimally workable. However, it omits practical details an agent may need, such as whether options are expected when type changes to select/multiselect, the effect of changing a question's type, or what the update returns, since there is no output schema.

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 50%; type and options already have descriptions, while id and text do not. The description enumerates the editable fields, which adds a little meaning, but it does not explain id or the semantics of 'text' beyond the property name, so the compensation for the undocumented parameters is partial.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and names the exact resource ('a question') plus the editable fields ('text, type or options'), which separates it from create/delete/get/list question tools. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool hires_update_form_question, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool or when to choose another: no mention of create/delete/list_question_types or update_form_question. The only usage cue is the verb 'Update,' which forces the agent to infer applicability.

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