edit_question

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

Annotations only supply idempotentHint, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the edit is restricted to the original author and requires at least one field. It does not explain returns or what a rejected edit looks like, but the authorization constraint is a meaningful disclosure.

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: identity of the operation, the precondition, then purpose. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 mutation tool with no output schema the description covers who may call it and why, which is the core need. The gap is that the empty input schema means the caller learns nothing about the editable fields or their formats from either the schema or the description.

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?

With zero declared parameters the baseline is 4, and the description notes that at least one field must be supplied. However, it never enumerates which fields are editable, and the empty schema gives the agent nothing to work from.

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 and resource ('Edit a question you previously posted'), which is easily separable from siblings like post_question and delete_question. It does not explicitly name a sibling to route against, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use guidance ('clarify the problem description, add missing context, correct the failure type') and a precondition ('only the original author can edit'). It does not call out alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it stops short of 5.

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