Add a question

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

With annotations indicating a non-destructive write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) but not idempotent, the description adds significant transparency: it explains what is returned (created itemId and questionId from batchUpdate replies), notes the cost of appending ('costs one extra read'), and lists unsupported features (file-upload, grids, quiz grading). No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense paragraph with the core purpose stated first, then type catalog, then key behaviors and limitations. No redundant sentences; every clause adds information (e.g., 'can't be created via the API', 'need raw_request'). Efficient and front-loaded.

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 (17 parameters, 9 question types, no output schema), the description covers return values, type-specific requirements (choice types require options), parameter behaviors (low/high, labels, rating levels), and critical limitations. It even explains the internal mechanism (batchUpdate). This is complete for an agent to use effectively.

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 has 100% coverage but the description adds meaning beyond it: it explains that 'choice types require options[]', clarifies the index behavior (omitted = append, costs an extra read), and details how type enum maps to human-readable question types. This enriches raw parameter listings.

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 'Adds a question to the form' and enumerates all supported types with clear semantics ('radio (single choice), checkbox (multiple choice)'). It distinguishes from siblings via 'a convenience wrapper over batchUpdate createItem' and explicitly mentions returning itemId and questionId, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use context: 'index inserts at that position; omit to append'. Explicitly directs users to 'update_question' for quiz grading and 'raw_request' for grids, and states file-upload is not supported. This helps the agent choose between alternatives.

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