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

The description adds the meaningful behavioral constraint that locked standard demographics cannot be edited, which is not present in annotations. It also enumerates what can be changed (text, mandatory, randomisation, limits/labels, type), giving an agent an accurate scope. Since annotations already declare readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint true, and destructiveHint false, the description need not repeat those, and it does not contradict 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 two sentences, front-loading the action and editable attributes, and closing with the key limitation. No redundant or filler content. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 19 parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough: it states what the tool does and the primary restriction. It does not explain every parameter, but the schema fully documents them, and the qid and survey_id descriptions point to the relevant list tools. The locked-demographics caveat is an important piece of operational context.

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 the baseline is 3. The description groups parameters into high-level categories (text, mandatory, randomisation, limits/labels, type) but adds no specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides. This is adequate given the schema's completeness.

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 ('Edit') and resource ('existing question'), enumerates the editable attributes (text, mandatory flag, answer randomisation, limits/labels, type), and adds a scope exclusion ('Locked standard demographics cannot be edited'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_question and delete_question.

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 clear context: use this tool to modify an existing question rather than to create (add_question) or remove (delete_question) one. The clause 'Locked standard demographics cannot be edited' provides a when-not condition. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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