Editar pergunta

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a key side effect (not deleting/recreating the question, thus preserving responses) and points to get_form for position lookup. However, it does not state whether only provided fields are updated, what failure modes exist, or what permissions are required, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 compact: one main sentence listing scope and side effects, plus a short actionable pointer to get_form. Every phrase adds value, including the 'sem apagar e recriar' preservation guarantee.

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?

With a fully described 7-parameter schema and the get_form reference, the description gives an agent enough to correctly select and invoke the tool. The main gap is the lack of partial-update semantics or return/error behavior, but these are partially inferable from the schema and less critical given no output schema.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptive comments, so the baseline is 3. The description maps high-level concepts (enunciado, obrigatoriedade, alternativas, pontos, gabarito) to fields but adds no semantic detail beyond the schema. The index guidance duplicates the schema's existing pointer to get_form.

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 begins with 'Altera uma pergunta existente na posição indicada', a specific verb+object+scope. It enumerates updatable attributes (enunciado, obrigatoriedade, alternativas, pontos, gabarito) and differentiates from destructive alternatives by noting it preserves the link to received responses. Sibling tools like delete_question, move_question, and add_question make the purpose clear.

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 tells the agent to verify the target position with get_form ('Confira a posição com get_form') and gives a strong reason to use this tool instead of delete+recreate: it preserves the link to already received answers. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like move_question or update_form_info, but the guidance is practical and clear.

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