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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false) but not lifecycle; the description supplies that the item lands in DRAFT, that question_bank_publish is required before a QuestionBank block draws it, that 'hasChanges' reports unpublished state, and that full access is required. It even disambiguates that blockTypeColumns is a document, not a tool - a real trap for an agent.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and sibling disambiguation, then prerequisites, then behavior. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the parenthetical about blockTypeColumns being a document and the response-field aside make it slightly longer than strictly needed.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers lifecycle (draft vs published), the response field an agent should check, permission requirements, rejection cases, and the schema-discovery prerequisite. Nothing essential to calling it correctly 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 the baseline is 3 and the nested 'columns' shape is already documented in detail. The description contributes beyond the schema by warning that there is no universal item shape and pointing at the exact reference document that enumerates valid blockType values and their expected column names.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Adds ONE new question/item to a question bank') and immediately distinguishes itself from the two nearest siblings by naming question_bank_item_update as the replace path and question_bank_item_delete as the remove path. The 'ONE' emphasis clarifies that this is not a bulk operation.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use routing against both alternatives, a concrete prerequisite ('read riddle://reference/question-bank/block-type-columns before the first add into a bank you have not populated'), and a hard exclusion ('Rejected for a public template id'). The access prerequisite is stated rather than implied.

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