update_faq

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: it discloses that this is a full overwrite requiring every field, which explains why partial updates are impossible and complements the destructive hint.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the action and the key constraint with zero filler. Nothing is duplicated or wasted.

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 simple four-parameter mutation with annotations covering safety, this is close to adequate; the full-replacement requirement is conveyed. However it omits sibling routing and any note on permissions or effect on the existing FAQ, leaving some gaps against the 25% schema coverage.

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 only 25% — just faq_entity_id is documented ('FAQ entity ID from list_faqs'). The description names the other three parameters and their mandatory/full-replacement nature, partially compensating, but adds no format or semantics for display_order or answer beyond the type in the schema.

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 ('Update an existing FAQ'), clearly distinguishing it from list_faqs, add_faq and remove_faq without needing to name them. It does not explicitly route to those siblings, but the action is unambiguous.

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 no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative tools (add_faq, remove_faq) or when to prefer them. The 'all three fields must be supplied' constraint hints at full-replacement usage but is not framed as guidance.

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