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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world write, and the description is consistent with that ('Put a question'). Beyond the implicit write, the description adds no behavioral context: it does not say what gets created, whether the question requires the 'reasons' array, who can see or vote, or what the result looks like.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, so it is technically concise. However, given six parameters and an ambiguous voting mechanism, a one-line description is under-specified rather than appropriately sized.

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 open-world, non-idempotent write operation with six partially undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. An agent cannot tell from this text what the required 'reasons' field means or how the created question behaves.

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 0% across six parameters, so the description carries the full explanatory burden. It implicitly names 'space' and 'question', but says nothing about the required 'reasons' array, the optional 'choices', 'title', or 'closes_at' fields, leaving most parameters undocumented by either structured or natural-language text.

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 names a verb ('Put a question') and a target ('the space for a vote on Trana'), which gives a rough idea of the operation. However, 'for a vote on Trana' is ambiguous: it is unclear whether this creates a poll, solicits opinions, or triggers a Trana-based vote, and it does not distinguish the tool from close siblings like space_vote, space_questions, or trana_vote.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus space_vote, space_questions, space_decide, or trana_vote, even though those siblings clearly overlap. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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