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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the whole list is replaced rather than merged, the organizer key is required, a 409 is returned once anyone has answered, and sending a question's id preserves its picture. Only minor gaps remain, e.g. whether repeated calls re-create ids, which is partly implied by idempotentHint=true.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the scope constraint and replacement semantics come before the field reference. The opening repeats the title verbatim and the middle is a run-on field dump, but essentially every sentence carries operational information.

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 two-parameter, fully-replacing mutation with no output schema, the description covers input grammar, auth, ordering, limits, and the 409 failure path. It does not state what the call returns (e.g. whether newly assigned question ids come back), which is the main remaining unknown.

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 ~50% and the description more than compensates: it enumerates each question field (type, prompt length, required, options, max, answer, id), defines all seven type values and their option counts, and specifies answer-key formats per type including the yesno 1/0 convention. This is substantially richer than the schema's bare enums.

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 and resource (replace the questions of a survey/quiz) plus a hard scope qualifier ('only until the first response'). The agent can distinguish this from set_answer_key and update_settings without opening any 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?

Gives an explicit precondition and failure mode: works only until the first response, otherwise refused with 409, and setAnswerKey is named as the path for fixing the answer key afterwards. It stops short of routing an agent that wants to append or edit individual questions, but the when/when-not is clear.

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