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

Annotations already carry idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by disclosing that the bank is empty at creation, type-locked for its lifetime, and bound to a single project with an API-key fallback. There is no contradiction with 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 dense but front-loaded with the core verb and object; every sentence carries constraints or workflow that an agent needs. The final sentence compresses multiple project-scoping rules into one long sentence, but it is not wasteful.

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 create tool with no output schema, it covers the required riddleType, the optional projectId behavior, and the returned id's downstream use. It could be more explicit about the full response shape or error conditions, but no essential invocation detail is missing.

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 each parameter already has a description. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the integration semantics of the returned id, how projectId omission behaves, and why riddleType must match later references, so it rises above the baseline 3.

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 object: 'Creates a new, empty question bank for the given Riddle type ("Quiz" or "Poll")'. It also makes the type-locking and project-scoping behavior explicit, which distinguishes this tool from siblings like question_bank_item and question_bank_manage.

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 provides a concrete downstream workflow: add items via question_bank_item(action: "add"), then reference the returned id as questionBankId on a QuestionBank block of riddle_builder_create. It also explains when to pass projectId and what happens when it is omitted. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the create-vs-manage context is strongly implied.

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