update_question_entry

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

The opening WARNING discloses that the tool mutates stored DeepTutor learning data, which adds meaningful caution beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation. It does not contradict the destructiveHint=false annotation because mutating metadata is not necessarily destructive. The description could add more detail about idempotency or rollback, but the warning is helpful.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with a warning, and contains no filler. Every sentence contributes either an important caution or a clear statement of the tool's function.

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 that an output schema exists and annotations already convey the read/write nature, the description adds the key operational caution about explicit learner authorization. It omits explicit comparison to upsert_question_entry or the requirement that the entry already exist, but those are inferable from the tool name and the term 'update'.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond referring to 'target ID and values', which maps loosely to entry_id and the updatable fields. This meets the baseline for fully covered schema parameters.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Update supported metadata on one Question Bank entry'. It is not a tautology and gives an agent a good sense of the tool's scope, though it does not differentiate itself from the sibling upsert_question_entry.

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 gives an explicit condition for use: 'call only when the learner explicitly requests this action.' It also instructs the agent to check the target ID and values. It does not name sibling alternatives or list when not to use it beyond the explicit authorization condition.

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