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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the 2+ option constraint, which the schema also enforces, and says nothing about placement behavior (after/position/parentId interactions) or what a failed insert affects.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the constraint and usage hint follow immediately after the purpose statement.

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 mutation tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is thin: safety is covered by annotations and parameters by the schema, but ordering/parenting semantics and the effect of insertion are left entirely to the schema, which is adequate but not rich.

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% across all 10 parameters, so the schema already carries the semantics (including the chaining behavior of 'after' and 'position'). The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is the expected 3 baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Insert a dropdown select question') and adds the key constraint (2+ options). It does not explicitly distinguish this from close siblings like editor_insertRadioQuestion or editor_insertCheckboxQuestion, so an agent still has to infer the boundary.

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 single or multi-choice from a list' gives implied usage context, but there is no when-not guidance (e.g. prefer radio for few visible options, checkbox for multi-select) despite many near-identical insert siblings.

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