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

Beyond the idempotentHint annotation, the description explicitly states that existing questions with matching text are updated, disclosing the upsert semantics. It also explains that the answer is the exact wording the agent should give, which is behaviorally important and not inferable from the schema or annotations alone.

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 short sentences deliver the core action and the update behavior with no filler or redundant restatement of the title. The most decision-relevant details—exact answer and same-text update—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?

The tool is simple: one required array parameter whose nested structure is fully visible in the schema, and annotations already communicate the non-readonly, idempotent, and non-destructive nature. The description adds the missing behavioral detail of how existing entries are handled, making the definition complete enough for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds key semantic value: 'answer' is the exact agent response, and 'question' text is the matching key for updates. It does not fully walk through the items array structure, but the schema already provides the required object shape, so the added meaning is sufficient.

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 opens with the verb 'Adds' and names the resource 'frequently asked questions', then clarifies that the answer field holds the exact response the agent should give. It also reveals upsert behavior, making the tool's function unambiguous and distinct from the other oryksa tools.

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 statement gives clear context for when to use the tool: whenever FAQ entries need to be created or updated for the agent. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the described behavior is specific enough that an agent would not confuse it with the sibling tools.

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