Add membership question

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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: platform cap of 3 questions, only one allowed of type email, answers surface in list_membership_requests, the call returns all questions, it executes without a confirmation step, and nobody is notified. None of this conflicts with readOnlyHint=false / destructiveHint=false / idempotentHint=false / openWorldHint=true.

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 purpose, then constraints, then side effects; nearly every sentence carries information. The only waste is the duplicated 'Admins only,' stated once in the opening line and again near the end.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully says the call returns all questions and where answers later appear. Together with the permission, count-limit, and notification notes, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly; only the return shape detail (fields of a question) is thin.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: a group-level cap of 3 questions and the restriction that at most one may be of type email — constraints that affect how the 'type' parameter should be set. It doesn't otherwise elaborate on the 'options' or 'question' fields, which the schema already covers.

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?

Opens with a concrete verb+resource plus the end-user purpose: 'Add a question people answer when they ask to join the group.' This clearly separates it from update_membership_question and delete_membership_question in the sibling list, and from list_membership_requests which only reads.

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?

States the admin-only prerequisite and maps the action to its UI path ('Settings, Membership questions'), giving the agent a clear context for when this tool applies. It does not explicitly say when to prefer update_membership_question over adding a new one, so the alternative-routing guidance is incomplete.

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