Api chat questionnaire runs create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that the feature is experimental — but says nothing about what the run does, whether it triggers LLM calls, or what state it mutates.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the experimental caveat, so nothing is wasted. But the brevity comes from omission rather than efficiency — the sentence ends before conveying any actionable content.

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, open-world create operation with an opaque body, no output schema, and no annotations describing side effects or return values, sitting in a very large sibling namespace. The description leaves an agent without enough to call it correctly or to know what results to expect.

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 `body` parameter is an untyped free-form object with additionalProperties=true, so the schema conveys nothing. The description does not compensate at all: it never states which fields the body should carry or whether it is even required for a prefill run.

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?

"Experimental: questionnaire prefill runs" restates the tool name almost verbatim and never supplies a verb (create/start) or says what a run represents. The only value added is the "Experimental" stability warning; an agent still cannot say concretely what invoking this produces, especially versus the sibling start_questionnaire_prefill_create.

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 statement, no prerequisite, and no mention of alternatives. The sibling set contains several closely related operations (chat_questionnaire_runs_extract_questions_create, chat_questionnaire_runs_upload_create, chat_agent_runs_start_questionnaire_prefill_create), yet none are referenced, so routing is left entirely to guesswork from the name.

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