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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact beyond the annotations: this element is what actually drives a request's outcome, unlike a plain radio. It does not mention anything about placement conflicts or side effects on existing nodes.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the sibling disambiguation as the second beat. Nothing could be removed without losing signal.

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 an 8-parameter insertion tool with nested object params, no output schema, and rich schema-level documentation, the description covers the essential conceptual gap (why this question type exists vs. a radio) while the schema carries parameter detail. It is nearly complete; only explicit placement/prerequisite guidance 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 description coverage is 100%, so all 8 parameters (including after, position, parentId, labels) are already documented in the schema, including the useful '$prev' chaining note and the 'usually wrong' append warning. The description adds no parameter-level meaning of its own, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb ('Insert') and a precise resource ('the decision question') and immediately defines the resource's semantics (approve / decline / request changes) and its effect ('sets a request's outcome'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the nearest sibling (a plain radio) which is exactly the ambiguity an agent would face in this large insert_* family.

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?

The line 'A plain radio never sets an outcome' functions as an implicit when-to-use rule, steering the agent away from editor_insertRadioQuestion when an outcome-setting control is needed. It is clear context but stops short of an explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' statement or any prerequisite about form state.

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