Api questions partial update

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

Annotations already declare write semantics (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not explain that only supplied fields change, whether omitted fields are preserved or reset, what permissions are needed, or what happens on a missing id.

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?

A single short sentence with no padding, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency. It conveys nothing an agent could act on beyond what the name already says.

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 opaque payload object, no output schema, and no annotation detail on side effects, the description is entirely inadequate. Essential facts such as the payload shape, partial-update semantics, and error behavior are all absent.

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 description provides no parameter information at all. The critical 'body' parameter is an untyped free-form object with additionalProperties true, so an agent has no way to learn which Question fields belong there without trial and error. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap in any degree.

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 restates the tool name at a higher level: 'API endpoint for Question CRUD' plus 'partial update' in the name. It never specifies that this is a PATCH-style operation updating an existing Question, nor which fields of a Question are affected. Against siblings like questions_update, questions_create, questions_destroy and questions_retrieve, it gives no distinguishing signal.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this instead of questions_update (full update), questions_create, or questions_object_retrieve. The word 'CRUD' actively blurs the choice rather than narrowing it. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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