Api chat questionnaire runs partial update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond the word 'Experimental' — it doesn't explain what a prefill run is, what the body mutates, or what side effects occur when a run is patched.

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 this is under-specification rather than concision — a two-word fragment with a qualifier that conveys no actionable information and isn't front-loaded around the actual operation.

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 endpoint with an unspecified free-form body, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description does essentially none of the work required to call it correctly.

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 the body parameter is an unconstrained anyOf object with additionalProperties:true and no documentation anywhere. The description supplies zero information about the identifier's meaning or the expected body shape, leaving the agent with an opaque parameter.

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 a fragment, 'Experimental: questionnaire prefill runs.', that names a domain object but supplies no verb and never states that the tool performs a partial update of an existing run. An agent must fall back entirely on the tool name to infer the operation.

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 guidance on when to use this versus the many sibling questionnaire-run tools (runs_update, runs_create, runs_extract_questions_create, runs_mapping_partial_update, etc.). 'Experimental' is the only hint and it doesn't route the agent anywhere.

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