Import question

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

The description discloses the underlying method (import_question) and authentication expectations. Given that annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive), the description adds moderate value by specifying the method and the file path requirement. However, it does not elaborate on potential side effects or error conditions.

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 extremely concise: two sentences covering purpose, parameter usage guidance, and authentication. No extraneous information. Every sentence serves a clear function.

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 that an output schema exists (per context signals), the description does not need to explain return values. It adequately covers the core operation, parameter selection, and authentication. It does not mention error handling or prerequisites like survey/group existence, but the schema covers required parameters. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a 10-parameter tool with high schema coverage.

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 every parameter has a description. The tool description adds context beyond the schema by explaining the trade-off between import_data and import_data_path (size threshold) and the file location constraint for import_data_path. This enriches the semantic understanding for the agent.

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 'Import a question into a survey group.' This is a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes between the two data input methods within the tool. Although it does not differentiate from sibling tools like import_group, the name and description together make the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides actionable guidance: 'Use import_data_path for files at or above roughly 50 KB instead of inline import_data.' It also clarifies authentication ('do not provide a session key'). However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives like import_survey or import_group, which could help an agent choose the correct tool.

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