forms_add_question

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Add a question' and lists types, without mentioning side effects, required fields, or how the question is inserted (e.g., at the end by default). This is minimal and does not reveal any behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

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 very concise: two short sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core action, and the second lists types, which is useful. However, it may be slightly under-specified, but as a conciseness measure, it is well-structured 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?

The tool has 7 parameters and no annotations, yet the description is only two sentences. It lacks critical context about how to specify choice options, where the question is inserted, the role of the 'required' flag, and what the output schema contains. This is completely inadequate for a tool with this complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the 7 parameters. It only lists valid question types, which maps to the 'question_type' parameter, but provides no explanation for index, options, required, paragraph, or how they interact. This adds minimal value over 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 clearly states the action ('Add a question') and the resource ('a form'), making the primary purpose unambiguous. It lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools like forms_update_question, but the verb 'add' versus 'update' provides enough distinction. The list of types adds useful context.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as forms_update_question or forms_move_question. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear decision-making support.

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