update_question_options

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It states update action but lacks details on whether existing options are overwritten or merged, required permissions, or side effects. Schema explains parameters but not behavioral traits.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with scope, no wasted words. Highly concise and efficient.

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?

With 6 parameters and no output schema, description could provide more context on prerequisites, return values, or behavior. However, schema covers parameters well, and the description gives minimum viable info.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions '选项内容' generically.

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?

Description clearly states the tool updates option content of single-choice/multiple-choice questions, using specific verb '更新' and resource '选项内容'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_answer_item and delete_answer_item by specifying question type.

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?

Description explicitly limits usage to single/multiple choice questions, providing useful context. However, it does not mention when not to use or suggest alternatives like create_answer_item for new options.

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