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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on whether the insert is reversible, what happens to ordering, or that required defaults to true — all of which live only in the schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is appropriately sized, though it is arguably too terse given the crowded insert-tool family it belongs to.

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 tool has no output schema, so return values need not be explained, and the schema covers all parameters. What is missing is context about how this question type differs from the many other question-insertion siblings, which is the key disambiguation an agent needs in this toolset.

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% and all 7 parameters (including the subtle after/position/parentId placement semantics) are documented in the schema itself. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a clear verb+resource ('Insert a date picker question'), so an agent can identify the operation. However, it offers no differentiation against close siblings like editor_insertTimeQuestion or editor_insertScheduleAppointmentQuestion, leaving the boundary between date/time/schedule ambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. needing an existing formId), and no routing to alternative insert tools. The usage context is only implied by the tool name.

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