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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the precondition that the question must already exist ('existing'), but says nothing about partial-update semantics — whether omitted fields are left unchanged or cleared — which is the key behavioral question for an update tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; nothing is redundant. It is arguably too terse for a mutation tool, but that shortfall is better attributed to completeness than to verbosity.

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 mutation tool with five optional fields, the description omits partial-update semantics, required-role/permission context, and behavior when the ID does not exist. The output schema covers return values and annotations cover safety, but the core update contract is undocumented.

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 100% with enums documented for subject and difficulty_level, so the schema fully carries parameter meaning. The description contributes no additional detail such as whether at least one updatable field is required alongside id.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing GCSE question') plus the addressing key ('by its ID'), which is enough to distinguish it from sibling readers like ingestion_get or submission_mark. It does not explicitly contrast with markScheme_update, but the resource noun differs, so confusion risk is low.

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 on when to use this rather than markScheme_update or paper_confirm, and no guidance on the update workflow (e.g., whether to fetch first, whether to send all fields or only changed ones). The agent must infer everything from the schema.

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