update_question

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explicitly states the tool cannot change order (a limitation), and it discloses that the return value is the updated question 'refetched after the patch', which tells the agent the response reflects the post-update state. This goes beyond the annotations and schema.

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 and well-structured: a one-line summary, a clear exclusion note, a concise Args list, and a Returns line. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important constraint (cannot change order) is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, what it cannot do, what parameters mean, and what the return value is. The output schema exists, so return-value details don't need to be in the description. Minor gap: it doesn't mention error conditions or permissions, but these are not critical for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It explains form_id and question_id as numeric IDs, and key_value_pairs as an object with fields to change, listing common keys (text, description, isRequired, name, extraSettings) and their types. This is substantial compensation for the schema's bare property definitions, though it doesn't exhaustively document every possible key (which is reasonable given additionalProperties: true).

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 states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('a question's properties'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from reorder_questions by noting it cannot change order. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tool reorder_questions and other question-related tools like create_question, delete_question, and get_question.

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 explicitly says 'cannot change order — use reorder_questions', which provides a clear exclusion and routes to the correct alternative. It also lists common keys for key_value_pairs, giving practical guidance on what fields can be updated. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus other update tools (e.g., update_form, update_option), though the resource-specific naming makes this fairly clear.

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