batch_create_questions

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions it is unofficial and unstable. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, required permissions, or what happens on failure. For a batch creation tool with no annotation safety net, this is a significant gap.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose, instability warning, and supported types. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 complexity (7 question types, many nested schemas) and no output schema, the description lacks high-level context about batch behavior, ordering, error handling, and what the response contains. The rich schema compensates partially, but the description is too minimal.

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 100%, so the schema already documents parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning to parameters beyond the list of question types, which is already implied by the tool's purpose.

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 is for batch creating questions, lists the supported question types (单选、多选、填空、判断、附件、简答题、编程题), and distinguishes itself from sibling individual create tools by noting it is unofficial, unstable but more powerful.

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 hints at when to use this over individual tools ('非官方接口,不稳定但功能更强大') but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. The context with sibling tools helps, but the description itself lacks direct usage direction.

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