Api chat questionnaire questions partial update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing: it doesn't say which fields can be patched, what happens to omitted fields, or what permissions/errors are involved. No contradiction with annotations, but zero added value.

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?

It is short, but brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness: a single repeated identifier with no front-loaded verb or scope. There is no wasted sentence because there is effectively no content.

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?

A mutation endpoint with no output schema, an unconstrained `body` payload, and 0% schema description coverage. The description supplies none of the missing context needed to invoke it correctly, which for a non-idempotent partial update is a serious 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 description coverage is 0% and there are 2 parameters, including an opaque freetext `body` object with additionalProperties allowed. The description does not explain what `id` identifies or what keys `body` accepts — the most consequential ambiguity in this tool and entirely unaddressed.

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 is the tool name verbatim: "api_chat_questionnaire_questions_partial_update". It restates the identifier without stating in plain language what changes, on which resource, or to what end. An agent must parse the snake_case name to infer it partially updates a questionnaire 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no exclusions. Siblings include ..._partial_update, ..._update, ..._create, ..._destroy, ..._retrieve, ..._object_retrieve — the description gives no basis for choosing among the update vs partial_update vs retrieve variants.

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