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

The description discloses a non-obvious behavioral trait: changing question_type or any answer field rebuilds the answer key, requiring the answer field to be resupplied. This is valuable context beyond what the schema shows. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does a decent job for the key side effect.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The critical behavioral warning is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence clarifies the required action. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description covers the key side effect and the required action, but with 10 parameters and no output schema, an agent might still need more context about which fields are required for each question type, how the answer key rebuild affects existing data, and what the response contains. The schema covers some of this, but the description could be more complete for a complex update tool.

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 50%, so the schema already documents several parameters (items, pairs, options, correct_answer, accepted_answers). The description adds the critical rule about resupplying the answer field when changing type, which is not in the schema. However, it doesn't explain the remaining parameters (id, points, explanation, question_text, question_type) beyond what the schema provides, so it doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 clear verb and resource ('Edit a bank question'), which distinguishes it from create_question_bank_item and list_question_bank_items. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, but the action is specific enough that an agent can infer its purpose.

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 a clear conditional usage hint: if changing question_type or any answer field, resupply the answer field for the new type. This is practical guidance for when to include certain parameters. It doesn't explicitly say when to prefer this over update_quiz_question or other update tools, but the resource is clear.

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