upsert_question_entry

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

The description warns that the tool 'Changes stored DeepTutor learning data' and instructs the agent to 'Check the target ID and values,' adding meaningful caution beyond the annotations. readOnlyHint=false aligns with the mutation, and destructiveHint=false is not contradicted.

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: a front-loaded warning and a clear purpose statement. Every clause earns its place, and the most important safety information appears first.

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?

The warning plus purpose is adequate for an upsert with a rich schema and an output schema. It covers authorization and target verification, though it leaves the upsert-versus-update distinction with the sibling tool to the agent's inference.

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 92%, so the schema already documents nearly all parameters. The description adds only generic guidance about checking the target ID and values, not parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Import or update a native Question Bank entry by stable question ID.' It clearly identifies what the tool does and the key identifier used, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling update_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 authorization condition: 'call only when the learner explicitly requests this action.' This provides clear context for when the write is appropriate, but it does not discuss when to prefer this tool over update_question_entry or mention exclusions.

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