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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly implies a create/add operation and adds valuable conditional behavior (which answer field to supply per type). However, it does not disclose side effects, permissions, error conditions (e.g., invalid bank_id), idempotency, or what happens if multiple answer fields are supplied.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no fluff and front-loads the core purpose. The parenthetical listing of type-to-field mappings is dense but efficient. It could benefit from a cleaner structure (e.g., a short list), but every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, 6 question types, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the most critical decision: which answer field to use for each type. It omits some operational context, such as how defaults like points behave or what happens when a bank is missing, but the core guidance needed to invoke the tool correctly is present.

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 60%, so the description needs to compensate. It does exactly that by explicitly mapping question_type to the correct answer parameter (options, correct_answer, accepted_answers, pairs, items), which the schema only hints at via individual field descriptions. This adds meaningful semantic guidance beyond the raw schema.

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: 'Add a question to a bank.' It also enumerates all six question types, making the tool's scope unambiguous. The name and description clearly distinguish it from siblings like create_question_bank (which creates the bank itself) and create_quiz_question (which targets quizzes).

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?

The description provides clear context for using the tool: it is for adding questions to a question bank and supports all six types. It gives per-type field instructions (e.g., options for multiple_choice) that guide correct usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, such as update_question_bank_item for modifying existing items.

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