Modify Forms question show condition

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so safety is partly covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the API validates a complete group despite the PATCH verb, requiring both operator and at least one clause, and that the group id is never transmitted in the body.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the replacement semantics and the PATCH caveat. No filler; every clause carries a constraint the agent needs.

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 nested, four-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the critical gotcha (full replacement, required fields, id exclusion) and the schema covers the rest. Minor gap: no mention of return value or error behavior, but no output schema exists to defer to.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning — it clarifies that condition_id identifies the target group while the group id itself is excluded from the payload, and reiterates the required operator plus at-least-one-clause constraint at the top level.

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?

States a specific verb+resource — replacing a question's condition group — and immediately qualifies it as a FULL replacement rather than a partial update. An agent can distinguish this from forms_conditions_question_set_operator and forms_conditions_question_create without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear context for selecting this tool: it is used when the entire condition group must be replaced, and it warns that the PATCH verb is misleading. It does not name the sibling alternatives (set_operator, create) or their selecting conditions, so it falls short of explicit routing.

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