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

Beyond the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds critical behavioral detail: the operation is irreversible with no undo, pending deletes are restored, items added since last publish are left alone, and only items are affected while title/notes metadata are untouched. This significantly enriches the agent's understanding of side effects.

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?

Although the description is long, every sentence earns its place by covering a distinct aspect: core action, irreversibility, edge cases around pending deletes and additions, metadata exclusion, pre-call guidance, and rejection condition. The most important information is 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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description is highly complete. It explains what happens, what does not happen, irreversibility, alternatives, and the public template rejection. An agent has everything it needs to decide whether and how to call this tool correctly.

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% and the sole parameter questionBankId is clearly documented in the schema as 'The ID of the question bank to discard the unpublished changes of.' The description itself does not add additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Throws away every unpublished change to a question bank's items at once, resetting each of them to its last published content.' It also distinguishes itself from related operations by noting it is not 'restore the bank as it was published' and by naming question_bank_get_items and question_bank_manage as different operations.

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 explicit guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives: it tells the agent to read both draft and published states first, explains how to read those states with question_bank_get_items, and says to prefer question_bank_manage(action: 'publish') when the draft should survive. It also states a rejection condition for public template ids.

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