edubase_post_question_id

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond 'Set', such as whether setting the ID is idempotent, overwrites existing values, or has side effects. Since annotations provide the baseline safety profile, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks nuance.

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, clear sentence of 15 words. It front-loads the action and resource, with no redundant or extraneous information. Every word contributes to purpose clarity, making it highly efficient for agent processing.

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 tool's simplicity (2 required string parameters, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It explains what the tool does and which parameters are needed, but it omits any mention of return values or behavior (e.g., whether it returns the updated question object or a confirmation). An agent would need to infer the response from context, which is a 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters having descriptions. The tool description repeats the schema descriptions verbatim without adding new meaning (e.g., format constraints, typical values, or relationship between parameters). It does not compensate for any missing schema detail, so it meets the baseline of 'no added value beyond 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 clearly states the action ('Set'), the resource ('external unique question identifier'), and how to identify the question ('by a question identification string'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like edubase_get_question_id (retrieve) and edubase_post_question (create), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions (e.g., 'use this to assign an external ID to an existing question'). The lack of contextual guidance forces the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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