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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, non-open-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that — no note about insertion ordering, required placement, or what happens on insert — so it contributes almost no context the annotations don't supply.

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 with zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the use-case hint. Nothing wastes the agent's context budget.

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 11-parameter insertion tool with no output schema, the annotations and rich schema cover the mechanics, and the description is technically sufficient to call it. It is nevertheless thin on the one thing that matters here: disambiguating this tool from the many other insert*Question siblings.

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 11 parameters (min, max, after, position, parentId, isHidden, labels) are documented inline in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the 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 and resource ('Insert a linear scale question') and gives concrete range examples (1-5, 1-10), which is more than a restatement of the title. However, it never distinguishes itself from the very similar sibling editor_insertRatingQuestion or editor_insertNumberQuestion, so an agent must guess between them.

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?

'Use for sentiment, agreement scales' implies a context but gives no when-not and no comparison to the near-identical rating/number question tools in the sibling list. The guidance is only implicitly useful.

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