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

Adds genuine context beyond the annotations: authenticated caller, ownership requirement, persistence to database, and no coin cost. However, annotations flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description says nothing about what is destroyed, whether omitted fields are preserved, or whether edits can be reverted — the key risk information is absent.

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?

Short, front-loaded, and each sentence carries information (what it does, ID provenance, persistence, cost, auth). The all-caps 'IMPORTANT' ID warning is slightly redundant with the schema but is cheap and prevents a common error.

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 an 8-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the essentials are present: ID provenance, auth, ownership, cost. What is missing is partial-update semantics and any statement of consequences given the destructive hint, which is material for a write 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 100%, so all eight parameters are already documented, including the question_id UUID sourcing constraint. The description repeats that constraint rather than adding new semantics, 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 ('Edit existing fill-blank question content'), which distinguishes it from the create_fill_blank sibling and from the other edit_* tools for different question types. It is clear what is being modified, though it never spells out which fields literally constitute the 'content'.

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?

Usage is implied: use this to modify an already-created question, use create_fill_blank to make new ones (referenced via the response-path hint). There is no explicit 'use this instead of X' or when-not guidance, and no statement that an edit is a full replacement versus a patch.

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