Api chat questionnaire runs extract questions create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds relevant context that rows are materialized from existing parsed data and a column mapping, but it does not describe permissions, repeat-call behavior, or side effects beyond row creation.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. It communicates the core operation immediately and does not repeat structured fields unnecessarily.

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 create operation with no output schema and a completely undocumented required identifier, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify what the required ID refers to, what preconditions must exist, or what happens on repeated invocation.

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 there is one required parameter, "id", which the description never explains. The description references parsed_data and column_mapping, but those are not schema parameters; it leaves unclear whether "id" is the questionnaire run ID or another identifier.

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 uses a specific verb ("Materialize") and names the exact resource created ("QuestionnaireQuestion rows"), along with the source inputs ("parsed_data + column_mapping"). This distinguishes it from generic questionnaire-question creation tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

It gives no explicit guidance on when to use this extraction endpoint versus related siblings such as questionnaire_questions_create, questionnaire_runs_upload_create, or batch_action_create. The intended context is inferable from the tool name, but the description itself does not state prerequisites or selection criteria.

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