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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes well beyond: it discloses irreversibility (no undo, no copy of the discarded draft), the edge behavior of a pending item delete (comes back) versus a newly added item (left alone), and the scope limit that title/notes metadata is untouched. It also states the access requirement via riddle://reference/concepts/access. This is unusually rich behavioral context.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then irreversibility, edge cases, scope, and routing. Every sentence carries substantive information, though the dense em-dash/semicolon packing makes it longer than strictly necessary for a one-parameter tool.

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 destructive, annotation-covered, single-param tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, reversibility, edge cases, scope boundaries, prerequisites, and the alternative path. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 a single integer parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no syntax or format detail about questionBankId beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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States a specific verb and resource (discards every unpublished change to a question bank's items), explains the resulting state (reset to last published content), and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like question_bank_manage(action: publish) and question_bank_delete. An agent can tell exactly what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance (read both sides first via question_bank_get_items, with published: true for the target state), an alternative with a condition that selects it (prefer question_bank_manage(action: publish) when the draft should survive), and an exclusion (rejected for a public template id). Nothing is left to inference.

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