hires_update_form_question

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. As a mutation tool, it does not state prerequisites (e.g., that the form and question must exist), potential side effects (e.g., whether hiding a question affects existing responses), or what the API returns on success or failure. The description only identifies the action without consequences.

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 sentence that immediately states the action and target, with no unnecessary words. It effectively serves as a clear, front-loaded summary.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description needs to explain return values, error conditions, and intended usage scenarios. It lacks all of these, leaving the agent uncertain about what to expect when invoking the tool. For a tool with three parameters and a mutating action, this is a significant gap.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions, including the enum for status. The description adds no additional parameter syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. It merely restates the purpose of the parameters in a general way, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific resource: 'status (required/optional/hidden) of a question inside a form.' This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like hires_update_question (which updates question details) and hires_update_form (which updates form-level settings). The scope is precise: it only concerns the status of a question within a specific form.

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 the tool is for changing question status (required/optional/hidden) in a form, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of situations where one would prefer hires_update_question or hires_update_form. The usage context is inferable from the resource scope, but not explicitly stated.

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