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

Annotations disclose the write-but-non-destructive, non-open-world profile, so safety is partly covered. The description adds nothing beyond restating the purpose and naming configurable options that the schema already documents; it says nothing about insertion ordering effects, required defaults, or what happens on success.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The second sentence is largely redundant with schema properties, which is the only minor waste.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and rich sibling competition, the description covers the 'what' but not the 'how/when' — insertion ordering, chaining rules, and required-field defaults all live only in the schema. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 the schema fully documents all 10 parameters including the non-obvious 'after'/$prev chaining and 'position' semantics. The description's mention of accepted file types and size limits merely echoes schema fields, adding no extra meaning. 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Insert a file upload question') that is immediately distinguishable from other insert tools by name. However, it offers no differentiation from the many sibling question-insertion tools (insertCheckboxQuestion, insertTextQuestion, etc.) beyond the resource noun itself.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus other question types, no prerequisites (e.g., needing a formId), and no mention of the positioning/chaining behavior implied by the 'after' and 'position' params. The agent must infer everything from the schema.

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