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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Add' is consistent and carries a lighter burden. The description does not add extra behavioral context such as effects on published surveys, validation failures, or relationship to fixed_position and randomise_answers, but it does not contradict the 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 sentence that front-loads the action and object, then specifies the applicable question types. There is zero filler or redundancy, making it optimally concise.

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 simple create operation with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the core intent. However, it does not address error behavior for invalid question types, whether the survey must be in draft mode, or any return values (no output schema). It is minimally adequate but not rich in context.

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 100%, with each of the 8 parameters described meaningfully. The description itself adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('Add'), a specific object ('answer option'), and a clear scope (single_select / multi_select / ranking / matrix questions). This immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_question, update_answer_option, and remove_answer_option without requiring schema inspection.

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 implicitly scopes usage to four question types, which gives some context. However, it does not explicitly instruct when to use this tool versus update_answer_option or remove_answer_option, nor does it mention exclusions like text questions. The usage guidance is implied rather than made explicit.

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