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

Goes well beyond destructiveHint=true by disclosing that previous notes are overwritten entirely (not appended), that the change is immediate and permanent, and that it is unaffected by publishing or discarding and never counts as an unpublished change. For a non-idempotent destructive mutation, these are exactly the traits an agent needs.

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-loads the destructive replacement behavior in the first sentence, then adds constraints efficiently. Density is high but essentially every clause carries information, though it is close to over-packed for a two-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?

With no output schema needed, the description covers the destructive overwrite risk, permanence, interaction with draft/publish lifecycle, auth requirement, and a rejection case. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters (questionBankId, notes) are already fully documented, including the replace-not-append semantics of notes. The description reinforces this but adds little parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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: replaces the plain-text maintainer notes of a question bank, with the scope qualifier that notes are never shown to participants. An agent can immediately distinguish this from question_bank_get, question_bank_rename, or question_bank_item_update.

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?

Explicitly instructs reading notes with question_bank_get first and sending the full desired content, and states a hard exclusion: rejected for a public template id. It also names the access prerequisite with a reference path.

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