Update form question

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails it. It does not disclose whether this is a partial or full replacement update, what happens to omitted fields, permission/account requirements, or any return behavior. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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, well-front-loaded sentence that names the operation and the affected fields with no filler. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves little room for the behavioral detail an un-annotated mutation tool needs.

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?

A 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema demands more than one field list. The description never addresses the account parameter, partial-update semantics, or the choice-question restriction on options, leaving real gaps for an agent to call it 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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The description restates the same fields without adding format, constraint, or precedence 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?

States a specific verb (update) and resource (a form question) and enumerates the mutable fields: title, description, options, required flag. This distinguishes it from sibling add/delete/move question tools at a glance. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and never mentions the alternatives (add_question, delete_question, move_question, rename). The agent can infer it edits an existing question, but nothing is stated about when this is the right tool versus the siblings.

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