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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It spells out state transitions: edit text, mark resolved/unresolved, set or clear a resolution note, and change askedTo. 'Pass only the fields you want to change' also tells the agent that omitted fields are left untouched, which is important update behavior.

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?

Two efficient sentences cover the operation, the editable aspects, the identifier choices, and the patch semantics. No filler or redundancy; the key usage constraints are 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 six-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives enough information to invoke it correctly: identifier alternatives and which fields can be mutated. It omits response details and error behavior, but the input-side semantics are sufficiently complete.

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%, and the description compensates by explaining questionId is a UUID, clarifying that key is the alternative identifier, and mapping intended changes to fields. The partial-update rule is essential semantics that is not fully captured by the schema alone.

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 starts with the specific verb-resource pair 'Update an open question' and then enumerates the concrete kinds of changes: text, resolved state, resolution note, and askedTo. This makes it clearly distinguishable from create_open_question, get_open_question, and list_open_questions.

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?

It gives explicit invocation guidance: 'Provide either questionId (UUID) or key (short key)' and 'Pass only the fields you want to change', which clarifies the partial-update model. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the update intent is clear enough that an agent knows when to choose this tool.

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