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

Annotations mark the tool destructive and non-idempotent, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: omitted columns or values are deleted, blockType is immutable, changes land only in the draft, and hasChanges indicates whether unpublished changes exist. It also discloses access requirements and public-template rejection.

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 dense but front-loaded with the core replace-not-merge behavior, then covers prerequisites, immutability, draft workflow, and access constraints. Every sentence contributes operational detail without redundant repetition.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains replacement semantics, required fields, draft visibility, publish/discard lifecycle, immutable blockType, response hasChanges, access needs, and template restrictions.

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 schema already carries most parameter meaning. The description still adds useful semantics by emphasizing that all four content fields must be sent even when unchanged, that omitted values are removed, and that value ids must be preserved to edit existing values rather than replace them.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it replaces the content of ONE existing question bank item entirely, and explicitly says this is not a merge. It distinguishes the operation from alternatives such as question_bank_item_delete plus question_bank_item_add when blockType must change.

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?

It gives clear usage instructions: read with question_bank_get_items first, send back every field and value id, use question_bank_publish to make changes live, and use question_bank_discard_changes to throw away unpublished changes. It also names the alternative workflow for immutable blockType changes and notes rejection 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.