questionTypes_upsert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait: it creates or updates based on whether the question type already exists (implied by the 'id' field). However, it omits other critical details like return value, error conditions, or authorization requirements.

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 short, clear sentences. No filler or redundant information. Efficiently communicates the core function.

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?

Given the tool has 30 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain what the tool returns, which fields are required for create vs. update, or how to verify the operation's success. For such a complex tool, more context is needed.

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 high (87%), so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only clarifying the existence check (which maps to the 'id' field). No new semantic details beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool creates or updates a question type, using a standard upsert pattern. It distinguishes from siblings like 'questionTypes_delete' or 'questionTypes_get' by specifying the combined create/update behavior.

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 implicitly indicates use when you want to create or update a question type based on existence, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over separate create/update tools (which are not present as siblings). No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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