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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds substantive context beyond them: previously published content is overwritten, a pending item delete is purged permanently, and every Riddle using the bank is republished even when nothing changed. It also discloses auth requirements (full access, with a reference path) and the public-template rejection, which no annotation conveys.

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 core action and what changes at view time, then layers consequences, the alternative, and prerequisites. It is dense and mostly waste-free, though the run-on first sentence and the access-reference tail could be tightened.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers consequences (overwrite, purge), scope of side effects (all Riddles using the bank), pre-flight verification, auth requirements, and failure conditions. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely 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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents questionBankId. The description adds no format or syntax detail about the ID itself; per the high-coverage baseline, 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Makes every item's draft content its published content') and immediately grounds it in the domain ('what a QuestionBank block of a live Riddle actually draws at view time'). It also names the opposite operation, question_bank_discard_changes, so the agent can distinguish it from the sibling without opening either 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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Read question_bank_get_items with and without published: true first when unsure what will change.' It also gives exclusion conditions ('Rejected for a public template id') and points at the inverse sibling, which covers when-not-to-use.

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