add_multiple_choice_question

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'add' and 'with answer key,' but fails to explain important behaviors: whether it appends or inserts at index, what happens with invalid correct_answers, if it overwrites existing data, or if authentication is needed. The description is insufficient for safe usage.

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 at one sentence. It front-loads the key info. However, it could be slightly more informative without bloat. Still, it respects brevity.

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 has 8 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (not shown), the description is too sparse. It omits crucial context like question placement (index), scoring (points), and behavior for required flag. The agent would need to infer too much from parameter names alone.

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 should compensate. It adds little beyond parameter names: only 'with answer key' hints at correct_answers. No elaboration on options, points, kind, index, or required. The description does not fulfill the burden.

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 choice question and specifies the types (radio/checkbox/dropdown) and includes answer key. It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like add_text_question or add_true_false_question.

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 implies the tool is used when adding a multiple-choice question but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it vs alternatives or any prerequisites. The context is clear but not directive.

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