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

Annotations already cover idempotency, non-destructiveness and the write nature, but the description adds the append-only semantics ('keep all the others') and the no-op outcome for duplicates ('nothing changes and `added` is false'). The DRAFT-only precondition is also disclosed, which annotations do not convey. It stops short of saying what happens when the job isn't a draft.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the disambiguation rule, then the parameter semantics, then the idempotency outcome. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description only needs to flag the meaningful return field, which it does by naming `added`. The only gap is failure behavior for a non-draft job or a duplicate with a different `required_answer` value.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the burden and it does explain the non-obvious `required_answer` default meaning ('candidate must answer yes to continue') and the `question` payload. `job_id` is only implied via 'DRAFT job', so it is not fully exhaustive.

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 ONE knockout question') plus the scope constraint that the target must be a DRAFT job. It explicitly names the sibling it is distinct from (update_draft_job), so the agent can separate the two without inspecting either schema.

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?

Gives a direct routing rule: 'Use this, not update_draft_job, when the member asks to add a question.' The alternative and the triggering intent are both named, leaving nothing to infer.

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