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

Adds genuinely useful context beyond the annotations: updates persist to the database, cache is invalidated, no coin cost, and authentication plus ownership are required. The destructiveHint=true annotation implies overwriting, and the description doesn't clarify whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by side effects and prerequisites. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Covers cost, persistence, cache behavior, and auth/ownership for a 7-parameter mutation tool, which is solid for a definition with full schema coverage and annotations. Slightly incomplete on partial-update semantics (what happens to unspecified fields) and there is no output schema, but nothing critical for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100% and every parameter is documented in the schema (including the strict pair_id provenance rule). The description merely restates the field list, adding no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides, 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 match-pair question content') and enumerates the editable fields, which cleanly separates it from the many other edit_* siblings (edit_mcq, edit_fill_blank, edit_ranking). An agent can identify the target resource without opening the 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?

The word 'existing' plus 'Requires authentication and ownership' implies this applies to already-created pairs, but there is no explicit contrast with create_match_pair or any statement about when-not to use it. Prerequisites are given, alternatives are not.

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