update_question_banks

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

The annotations already indicate this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: it is a batch operation, only the name field is writable, and a specific OAuth scope is required. It could further disclose failure modes or partial-update behavior, but it meaningfully supplements the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds needed context: batch behavior, parameter shape, field restrictions, sibling tools, and auth. It is slightly formatted with line breaks and a bit of prose, but each sentence earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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 batch rename tool, the description covers the operation, the parameter structure, the only writable field, related tools, and authorization. Since an output schema exists, return-value documentation is not required. Minor gaps remain around exact id/name types and any response behavior, but the tool is usable from the description alone.

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 gives almost no help: question_banks is just an array of arbitrary objects, with 0% schema description coverage. The description compensates by explaining that each item needs an id and that name is the only writable field, effectively defining the payload shape. It still lacks an explicit example or a statement that each item must also include the new name, but it is largely sufficient for a basic call.

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 first sentence, 'Rename one or more question banks', names a specific verb and resource. It also clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like create_question_banks, delete_question_banks, and update_questions by stating this is about renaming banks and that other operations live elsewhere.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool (renaming) and, crucially, what not to do with it: questions are managed via create_questions/update_questions and quiz relationships via bind tools. It also flags that this is a batch operation and states the required OAuth scope, giving the agent actionable selection and invocation guidance.

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