office_create_questions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only mentions 'strong stability' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether existing questions are overwritten, validation behavior, error handling, or any destructive actions. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 main action and supported types. It is efficient but could benefit from a second sentence to provide usage context or return values.

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?

The tool is complex with 4 parameters including nested objects, and no output schema exists. The description does not explain what happens on success/failure, or what the return values look like. It also omits prerequisites (e.g., obtaining paper_id from query_group_tasks), making it incomplete for a mutation operation.

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%, and the schema itself contains detailed descriptions for each parameter and nested types. The tool description adds minimal additional meaning beyond listing supported types, which is already covered in the schema discriminator. Thus, it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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's purpose: batch import of questions (official interface). It explicitly lists supported question types (單选、多选、填空、判断、简答、附件题), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that create individual questions one by one.

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 implies that this tool is the official stable batch import interface, and lists supported types, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., creating questions individually). No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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