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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the event-scoped, either-bank requirement but doesn't explain side effects, whether position defaults to the end, or what happens to ordering. Adequate, not rich.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core action and the key identifier requirement front-loaded. Every sentence 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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the schema documents the type-specific parameters. Still, for a 15-parameter tool where question_type silently determines which of options, rating_scale, slider_min/max, min/max_selections are required, the description gives no signposting to that coupling, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 100%, so every parameter already has a description (including the survey_id/assessment_id either-or rule the description repeats). The description adds no extra meaning about type-dependent requirements, which is the main semantic burden for this tool. Baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Add a question to a survey or assessment') and scopes it to an event, which is clear enough for an agent to distinguish it from create_survey or update_question. It stops short of explicitly naming sibling alternatives, so it doesn't reach a 5.

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?

It gives a prerequisite-style cue ('Provide either a survey_id or assessment_id plus the question text and type') but says nothing about when to use this versus update_question, create_survey, or create_poll, and offers no exclusions. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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