Api chat questionnaire questions suggest control create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so safety and idempotency are covered. The description adds one genuinely useful trait not in the annotations: that this is a synchronous LLM call, implying latency and generative output. It does not say whether the drafted control is persisted, what happens on model failure, or whether repeat calls produce different results.

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 front-loaded 'Synchronous LLM call' framing is efficient, and the total length is minimal. But the single sentence is cut off and never completes its thought, so brevity has become under-specification rather than tightness.

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?

For a non-idempotent, open-world LLM-backed creation endpoint with no output schema, the description should explain the input object, what is produced, and whether it is saved. With an incomplete sentence and an undocumented id parameter, an agent cannot confidently invoke it.

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% and the single required parameter is a bare string 'id'. The description never identifies what that id refers to (presumably a questionnaire question), so the agent must guess from the tool name alone.

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 names a specific action (draft) and target artifact (an AppliedControl), which does distinguish it somewhat from siblings like retry_with_control_create or create_and_retry_create. However, the sentence is truncated mid-clause ('that would let us'), so the actual relationship between the input and the drafted control is never stated.

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 guidance on when to call this versus the numerous sibling questionnaire-question tools (create, create_and_retry_create, retry_with_control_create, suggestions variants). No preconditions, no exclusions, and no mention of what the caller must do with the result.

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