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

Annotations only provide idempotentHint=false, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It discloses that the bank is created empty, the riddleType is fixed for its lifetime, the bank is scoped to one project, and omitting projectId falls back to the API key's project. It does not describe the full response shape or error behavior, but adds substantial context beyond the annotation.

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 sentences, all information-dense: the first states the core action, the second covers the integration workflow and type constraint, and the third explains project scoping and default behavior. There is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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?

The description covers the creation workflow, type restrictions, project ownership, default project behavior, and how to consume the returned id. Since there is no output schema, it could have explicitly described the full response shape, but it provides the essential return-value detail (the id) for the next step.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds workflow-level semantics: the riddleType determines which riddle_builder_* blocks can reference the bank, projectId must match the Riddle's project, and omitting it uses the API key's scoped project. This goes slightly beyond the schema descriptions without being redundant.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: "Creates a new, empty question bank for the given Riddle type." It also distinguishes this tool from questionBank_addItem and the riddle_builder_* family by explaining the creation workflow and the Quiz/Poll exclusivity.

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 explicit next steps: use questionBank_addItem to add items and reference the returned id as questionBankId on a matching riddle_builder_quiz/riddle_builder_poll call. It also provides a clear exclusion (a Quiz bank can never be referenced from a Poll, and vice versa) and explains project ownership/fallback behavior.

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