question_answer

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the answer update commits atomically with any wake, the answer remains readable via `question_get`, answered/withdrawn questions refuse with `QUESTION_STATE_CONFLICT`, and `wake_id` means queued not delivered. These are meaningful operational traits that the readOnly/destructive/idempotent hints do not convey.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the sentences carry real rules, but the wake-routing passage is dense and refers to fields absent from the schema, adding cognitive load without clarifying the actual call surface. Appropriately sized for a complex tool, but not tightly structured.

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 described, and the conflict/atomicity behavior is well covered. However the mismatch between the wake fields named in the description and the three-field input schema leaves the actual invocation surface incompletely aligned.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It explains `answer` well ('a picked option label or free text, including text outside the offered labels') but gives only a tautological gloss for `notes` and no meaning for `question_id`. It also references `wake_id`, `wake_skipped`, and `wake_rerouted_to`, which do not appear in the input schema and could mislead an agent into trying to pass them.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Record the human's answer to a pending or defaulted question in this project, plus optional notes.' The scope (pending or defaulted questions) is clear and it implicitly relates to `question_get` for readback, but it never explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling `question_update`.

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?

Gives concrete conditional routing: when you are the asker skip the wake, otherwise queue a wake to the running asker, falling back to the project's running lead, and skip again if no lead runs. This is clear when-to-use guidance for the wake behavior, though it does not compare against alternative tools for recording answers.

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