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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new context: writes persist to the database, the cache is invalidated, there is no coin cost, and authentication plus ownership are required. It does not say what happens to fields omitted from the update or whether partial updates overwrite, 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, front-loaded sentences: what it does, what side effects occur, then cost and auth prerequisites. No filler and no repetition of schema details.

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 7-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers persistence, cache side effects, cost, and auth/ownership prerequisites, which is most of what an agent needs. The missing piece is whether omitted fields are left unchanged or cleared, which matters given partial-update semantics.

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 every one of the 7 parameters is already documented in the schema, including the careful UUID-provenance note on question_id. The description only restates the field list, adding no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the 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 (Edit) plus the resource (existing ranking question content) and enumerates the editable fields, so it is clearly distinguishable from create_ranking and from sibling editors like edit_mcq or edit_fill_blank.

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?

Establishes the precondition clearly: the question must already exist, the caller must be authenticated and be the owner. It also notes the operation is free, implicitly contrasting with coin-charging creation tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, so it stops short of a 5.

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