Add a question

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

Annotations only indicate readOnly=false and destructive=false, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by stating that the operation returns created itemId and questionId, that index insertion costs an extra read, and that certain question types are unsupported. It does not contradict 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 dense but every clause earns its place: purpose, type list, option requirement, return values, index behavior, and unsupported cases. It remains a single readable paragraph without unnecessary fluff.

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 and the absence of an output schema, the description covers all essential operational knowledge: types, required options, return values, index semantics, performance nuance, and API limitations. Together with the fully-described input schema, there is no significant gap.

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 100% and each parameter already has a description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful context beyond the schema, such as tying types to their parameter needs (scale low..high, rating icons) and noting the extra read cost for index omission. However, some of this (e.g., choice types require options) is already in the schema, so the marginal addition is meaningful but not overwhelming.

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 clearly states the tool 'Adds a question to the form' and distinguishes it from siblings by calling it a convenience wrapper over batchUpdate createItem. It also enumerates the supported question types, making the scope concrete.

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 explicitly says when not to use this tool: file-upload questions cannot be created via the API, and question grids need raw_request with a batchUpdate body. This gives clear exclusions and points to the alternative tool.

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