update_default_question

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the auth requirement (Bearer PERSONAL_OAUTH_TOKEN) and error behavior (400 ARGUMENTS_ERROR, 404 NOT_FOUND when the event is missing), which is genuinely useful. However, it omits the mutation's side effects, whether the update is partial or full-replace, and what happens to existing question fields not supplied.

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?

Content is grouped into purpose, endpoint, errors, and auth with clear headers, and the purpose is front-loaded. Some boilerplate (labels like ERRORS (400)) is repeated, but the definition stays compact with no filler sentences.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers endpoint, auth, and error surface but leaves meaningful questions open: which fields of the 'question' object are updatable, whether updates are partial, and what a successful response contains. It is adequate but not complete for a write operation with a nested-object parameter.

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 baseline is 3. The endpoint path ('events/{event_id}/canned_questions/{question_id}/') corroborates the role of event_id and question_id, but the description adds nothing about the 'question' object's expected fields or shape, leaving the nested-object parameter underexplained relative to 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 clear verb (Update) plus resource (Default Question) scoped by ID, which lets an agent distinguish it from get/list/create/delete_default_question siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings or the conditions that select this one, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 the endpoint, error codes, and auth but never says when to use update vs create_default_question or get_default_question, nor any precondition beyond the existence of the event. No when/when-not guidance or alternatives are offered.

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