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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnly false, destructive false, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description restates the 2+ option constraint, which the schema already enforces via minItems, and says nothing about placement behavior, error handling, or what happens to existing elements. It neither contradicts nor enriches the annotations meaningfully.

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?

Three brief sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the constraint and selection condition. No filler or repetition.

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 insert tool with no output schema, the description is adequate on what it inserts but silent on the placement story (after vs. position vs. parentId) that dominates the schema and is easy to misuse. The schema covers it, but the prose does not help the agent navigate the tool's main 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 coverage is 100%, so all eight parameters including the subtle after/position/parentId placement semantics are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail beyond duplicating the options minimum, 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?

States a specific verb (Insert) plus resource (radio button question) and adds the differentiating semantic: single-choice selection. This cleanly separates it from siblings like editor_insertCheckboxQuestion and editor_insertSelectQuestion without requiring the schema.

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 when user must pick exactly one' gives a clear selection condition and implicitly rules out multi-select siblings. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative to route to, so it is not a full 5.

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