Modify Forms question

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the key behavioral fact that this is a full replace rather than a patch, and states the return value (the updated ``Question``). Permission requirements and the fate of omitted fields remain unstated.

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, zero waste, with the replace-vs-create distinction and the type-matching constraint front-loaded.

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-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the critical replace semantics, the discriminator precondition, and the return shape. Enough to call it correctly, though it omits what happens to fields not supplied in the replacement body.

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 coverage is 100% and the body's own description already says "``type`` must match the existing question," so the description largely restates schema content. The only added value is the procedural hint to fetch the current type via ``questions_get``.

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 ("Replace a question's settings") and explicitly contrasts with the create path ("same typed body as create"), so an agent can distinguish it from forms_questions_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 a concrete precondition ("The body's ``type`` must match the existing question's type") and names the sibling to call first (``questions_get``), which is genuine when-to-use guidance. It stops short of stating when NOT to use this tool (e.g., partial/field-level edits).

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