Import question group

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read, non-idempotent operation. The description adds context about the underlying API method and authentication, but does not elaborate on error conditions or side effects beyond what annotations provide. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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 concise: 4 sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the main purpose, then provides critical usage guidance, and ends with authentication instructions. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 of 7 parameters and the existence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, file handling, and authentication. It does not cover error cases or return value details, but the output schema likely handles that. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the import_data_path parameter in more detail: that the server reads and base64-encodes the file, the file size recommendation, and the directory constraints. This goes beyond the schema description.

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 verb 'Import' and the resource 'a question group into a survey'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like limesurvey_add_group by focusing on import from a file, and it provides specific guidance on file size thresholds. The purpose is immediately clear and sets appropriate expectations.

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 explicitly advises when to use import_data_path over import_data based on file size (~50 KB), which is actionable guidance. It also warns against providing a session key, clarifying authentication. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use an alternative like limesurvey_add_group, though it's implied.

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