hires_update_question

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'update' without disclosing critical behaviors: text and type are required by the schema, so a partial update is impossible; it does not mention idempotency, side effects, or error conditions. This gap is significant for a mutation tool.

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 starts with the verb 'Update' and lists the target fields. Every word earns its place with no fluff 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?

For a simple update tool, the description plus schema covers basic parameter meaning. However, it omits update semantics (full replace vs partial), the fact that text and type are mandatory even when only options change, and there is no output schema to describe return values. Sibling tool hires_update_form_question is not contrasted.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters (id, text, type, options), so the baseline is 3. The description merely names the same fields ('text, type, or options') without adding further semantic value like allowed values or constraints.

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 clearly states the action (update) and the resource (existing question definition), and specifies the updated fields (text, type, options). This differentiates it from siblings like hires_create_question, hires_get_question, and hires_update_form_question.

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 phrase 'existing question definition' implies this is for modifying already-created questions, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, and the sibling hires_update_form_question exists which could cause confusion.

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