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

The annotations already provide safety information (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as whether the update is partial or how missing fields are handled, providing minimal value beyond the structured annotations.

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, direct sentence that immediately conveys the verb, resource, and identifier without any superfluous words. It is perfectly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is well-supported by a complete schema, meaningful annotations, and an existing output schema. The description, while brief, is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and invoke it correctly. There is a minor gap in explicit usage guidance, but overall completeness is high.

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 schema fully describes all six parameters with individual descriptions, and the description does not add parameter-specific information beyond mentioning the ID. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 applies.

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's function: 'Update an existing GCSE question by its ID.' It uses a specific verb ('update') and resource ('GCSE question'), and identifies the required identifier ('by its ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like markScheme_update or paper_confirm.

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 implies the tool is for modifying an existing question, which is a clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Since no sibling tool updates questions, the context is sufficient, but it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it.

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