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

Annotations already declare the write profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: where the answer is stored (customFields.{key}), the default key derivation, and that the key is immutable after creation. It stops short of documenting permissions, error behavior, or duplicate handling.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then three dense sentences covering key semantics, the DROPDOWN constraint, and isReference meaning. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the important storage semantics and field requirements, and annotations carry the safety profile. It is reasonably complete, though it omits return values and failure/permission behavior.

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 only 11% across 9 parameters, so the description carries most of the burden. It meaningfully explains key (default + immutability), isReference, and the DROPDOWN/options dependency, but leaves label, helpText, required, locationId, and appointmentTypeId undocumented in both schema and description.

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 and resource ('Add a question to an appointment type's booking form') and identifies the resource precisely, distinguishing it from siblings like delete_booking_question, update_booking_question, and create_appointment_type. The '(Pro)' qualifier further scopes it.

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?

Provides an implicit trigger (adding a question to a booking form) and a field-type precondition ('DROPDOWN needs options'), but never states when to prefer this over update_booking_question or list_booking_questions, or any prerequisites like plan/permission requirements.

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