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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with these. However, the description adds little behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as what happens when changing position or flags.

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 one front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently states the action and the affected aspects, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the complete parameter schema and the safety information provided by annotations, the description is adequate for invoking the tool correctly. It lacks higher-level context about when to choose this over related answer-option tools, but that is more of a usage-guidance gap than a completeness gap.

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%, so the schema fully documents all nine parameters. The description only vaguely mirrors these fields ('flags', 'image', 'position') without adding meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline score.

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 ('Change') and resource ('answer option') and lists the modifiable aspects: text, flags, image, position. It is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like reorder_answer_options or add_answer_option.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as reorder_answer_options, add_answer_option, or remove_answer_option. It also omits context like the need to target an existing option via survey_id, qid, and code.

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