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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the danger profile is carried structurally. The description adds the useful context that the question must live in a specific question bank identified by either a survey or assessment ID. It does not say whether the removal is permanent, how in-flight responses referencing the question are handled, or what the response contains - meaningful gaps for a destructive operation.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the action plus its scoping constraint are front-loaded before the parameter note. Nothing is repeated or padded.

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 need no explanation, and all four parameters plus the required set are covered. The remaining gap is behavioral: nothing about irreversibility or side effects on collected responses, which matters even with destructiveHint=true carrying part of that load.

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%, so the schema already explains event_id, survey_id, question_id and assessment_id. The description only restates the either/or relationship between survey_id and assessment_id, which the schema descriptions also state; it adds no syntax, format, or lookup-path detail beyond that.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('a question'), and scopes it to a survey or assessment within an event, which distinguishes it from delete_survey and update_question in the sibling list. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 only guidance is a parameter constraint: 'Provide either a survey_id or assessment_id plus the question_id.' This implies the tool's prerequisite but never states when to choose this over update_question or delete_survey, nor what happens to a question that still has responses.

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