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

Beyond annotations, the description adds useful behavioral context: updates are persisted to the database, cache is invalidated, the operation is free, and authentication plus ownership are required. It does not contradict the destructive/idempotent hints, though it could clarify how omitted fields are handled.

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?

The description is three tight sentences, front-loads the core action and fields, then adds relevant side effects and prerequisites. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition.

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 mutation tool without an output schema, the description covers persistence, cache invalidation, cost, authentication, and ownership, and annotations carry the safety profile. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying partial-update behavior when optional fields are omitted.

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 the input schema already documents all six parameters, including the required question_id. The description merely restates the editable fields, adding little semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 gives a specific verb (edit) and resource (existing MCQ question content), and enumerates the editable fields. It clearly distinguishes this tool from creation tools such as create_mcq and broader tools like edit_quiz.

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 implies usage by stating it edits an existing MCQ and requires authentication and ownership, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives such as create_mcq or edit_quiz. No when-not conditions or sibling routing are provided.

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