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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent with that (insert = creation, not destruction). However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation profile - nothing about positioning behavior, chaining via after, or what happens on failure.

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 compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and zero filler. It is arguably too sparse for a 13-parameter tool, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 13-parameter creation tool with a nested object and no output schema, the description is minimal, though the fully documented schema carries most of the load. It omits the required formId/title expectation and insertion-positioning context that would help an agent call it correctly on the first try.

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 every parameter is documented in the schema, including the nuanced after/position/defaultValueFieldRef semantics. Baseline 3 applies since the description contributes no additional parameter meaning beyond the vague 'short or long text' hint at min/max.

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+resource ('Insert a text question') and scopes it to 'short or long text responses', which lets an agent distinguish it from the many sibling question-insertion tools. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 names, comments, descriptions' gives implied usage context for choosing a text question over other question types, but there is no when-not guidance and no reference to alternatives like insertNumberQuestion or insertSelectQuestion. Adequate but thin.

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