update_question

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'edit' implying mutation but discloses no side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or response behavior. This is insufficient 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 a single sentence, concise and front-loaded. However, brevity sacrifices necessary detail; the space could be better used to include the missing identifier requirement.

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 an update tool with no output schema, no annotations, and a minimal description, the contextual completeness is low. It fails to specify the mandatory identifier, how updates are applied (partial/full), and what the response indicates. The tool complexity requires more thorough documentation.

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 0 defined parameters with additionalProperties true. The description adds meaning by listing the editable fields (text, type, order), which compensates partially. However, it does not mention how to specify which question to update (e.g., an ID), which is critical for tool invocation.

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 the tool edits an existing question's text, type, or order, which is a clear verb+resource. However, it lacks specificity on how to identify the question (e.g., an ID parameter is not mentioned) and the input schema does not define any parameters, creating ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (create_question, delete_question, etc.). The description does not differentiate between update, create, or delete operations, leaving the agent without context for appropriate tool selection.

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