Create question group

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

Annotations already declare the write behavior (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds genuinely useful non-obvious context about authentication (service account, no session key), but says nothing about side effects such as duplicate titles or what happens to an existing survey structure. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is a modest but real addition.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence and only two short sentences total. The RemoteControl method reference is marginal but compact; nothing is bloated.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a 4-parameter mutation tool with many create-group siblings, the description omits any differentiation from import_group/add_group_from_spec and any note on duplicate handling or ordering, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 every parameter (survey_id, title, description, response_format) is already documented in the schema with types and constraints. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Add an empty question group to a survey'), and the 'empty' qualifier meaningfully scopes the operation. It is clearly distinct from delete/import/set siblings by implication, though it never names an alternative to differentiate against explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'empty' suggests this is for creating a fresh group to be populated later, in contrast to import_group or add_group_from_spec, but no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is stated. An agent must infer the routing from the tool name alone.

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