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

Annotations already declare the safe, non-destructive, closed-world write profile, so the description only needs to add mutation-specific context. It instead says nothing about insertion behavior, the significance of the `after`/`position` interaction, or what the default append does — context the schema hints at but the description never reinforces.

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?

A single short sentence with no waste and the core action front-loaded. It is efficient but so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.

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 7-parameter insertion tool sitting among dozens of sibling inserters, the description omits sibling disambiguation, placement behavior, and defaults. It relies entirely on schema text to carry completeness, which leaves the agent without routing cues.

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 all seven parameters, including the nuanced after/position/parentId placement semantics, are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter 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 (Insert) and resource (a time picker question), which is clear. However, it does not differentiate from near-identical siblings such as editor_insertDateQuestion or editor_insertScheduleAppointmentQuestion, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose a time question over a date question, schedule appointment question, or number question, nor any mention of prerequisites like an existing formId. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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