Api chat questionnaire questions create

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is known without the description. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on what the body must contain, whether retries duplicate records, or what a successful call returns. It does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes zero behavioral context.

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?

It is short, but short because it is under-specified rather than efficient. Front-loading is moot since the only content is the tool name echoed back.

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?

A non-idempotent create tool taking an arbitrary JSON body, with no output schema and no documentation, is completely underspecified. An agent cannot know what payload structure to send or how the operation relates to the retry/suggest/batch siblings.

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?

The single 'body' parameter is an untyped anyOf object with null default and 0% schema description coverage, so the schema tells the agent nothing about the expected payload shape. With low coverage the description must compensate, and it provides no information whatsoever about the questionnaire question fields the body should carry.

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 simply restates the tool name in snake_case, converting it into a sentence-like string without adding any explanation. The name does weakly imply creating questionnaire questions via a chat API, but there is no verb-object statement, no scope, and no differentiation from the many sibling question tools (create_and_retry, batch_action, suggest_control, retry_with_control).

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all. Given siblings like ciso_assistant_api_chat_questionnaire_questions_create_and_retry_create and ..._suggest_control_create, an agent has no basis for choosing this plain create over the specialized variants. No prerequisites, no exclusions.

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