hires_update_form

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

In the absence of annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and target fields, but does not describe whether the 'questions' array replaces the existing set, whether the update is partial or full, or any side effects or permission requirements. This leaves important behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff, making it easy to parse.

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 tool is relatively simple and the schema covers all parameter descriptions. However, the description does not clarify update semantics (e.g., whether questions is a full replacement), nor does it mention the required 'name' field explicitly. There is no output schema, so the return value is unspecified, but that is not unusual. Overall, the description is minimally adequate but lacks key behavioral details.

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?

The schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (id, name, questions) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning by calling 'questions' 'question composition', but this does not explain semantics like array replacement behavior. It does not compensate or add beyond the schema.

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 uses the verb 'update' with the resource 'form' and specifies the exact aspects: name and question composition. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hires_update_form_question, which updates a specific question, and hires_update_question, which updates question content. It effectively communicates the tool's scope.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to use hires_update_form_question or hires_update_question, nor does it specify prerequisites or intended scenarios. The only implicit guidance comes from the tool name and the generic description.

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