Set Forms question conditions operator

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

Annotations declare the write/idempotent/non-destructive profile, and the description adds useful scope detail: only the between-group operator is affected, group-internal operators are untouched, and it returns the envelope. Since there is no output schema, disclosing the return is extra value beyond annotations.

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 tightly scoped sentences; the primary action is front-loaded and the disambiguation clause follows immediately with zero filler.

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 3-required-param mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description is nearly complete, supplementing with the scope constraint and return mention. The only minor gap is it doesn't elaborate on error/auth conditions.

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% and the operator param already documents it as the boolean operator joining condition groups. The description restates this without adding format, enum, or default details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: setting the boolean operator between a question's condition groups. It explicitly contrasts with ``conditions_question_update`` for group-internal operators, so an agent can distinguish this scope from the sibling without opening either 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?

Draws a clear boundary: this tool changes the operator BETWEEN condition groups, and names ``conditions_question_update`` as the alternative for within-group operators. The when-not plus named alternative is strong, though broader usage context is not spelled out.

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