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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and non-destructive, and the description adds context beyond them by disclosing that the operation is asynchronous ('Queues a hosted job') and how to retrieve results via get_job. It stops short of explaining what 'replace' overwrites or how expectedRevision conflicts are handled.

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 compact sentences with the core upsert purpose front-loaded and the async retrieval note second. No wasted clauses, though the phrasing 'with an optional cases-or-responses denominator for one detected multi-select question' is dense.

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 that queues a job with no output schema and a nested definition object, the description covers the async lifecycle pointer but omits revision-conflict behavior and the meaning of the replace semantics. Adequate but with clear gaps given the tool's complexity.

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 only 38% across 8 parameters (7 required). The description clarifies the semantically tricky 'multipleResponseDenominator' (cases-or-responses for a single detected multi-select question) but says nothing about projectId, expectedRevision, idempotencyKey, or workspaceToken, leaving the concurrency and auth semantics to the schema.

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 ('Create or replace a reusable ordered row-variable set') and scopes it with the optional denominator purpose. It is distinguishable from siblings like define_banner or define_survey_design, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

'Queues a hosted job; use get_job to retrieve its result' gives a concrete follow-up routing step, which is genuinely useful. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as define_banner, nor any prerequisites or when-not-to-use conditions.

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