add_question

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal a valuable non-obvious side effect — a blocking question reverts a designed initiative back to draft — but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, or the response shape, leaving substantial behavioral gaps.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the most consequential side effect before the parameter hint. Every sentence carries information; nothing is padded.

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?

For a 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is too thin. It omits the meaning of the required `text` and `collection` parameters and any indication of what the call returns.

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 only 25%, so the description needs to compensate and largely doesn't. It explains the `implementation` flag meaningfully, but `text`, `collection`, and the rest of `ref` semantics remain undocumented in both schema and 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?

"Add an open question" gives a specific verb plus resource, and the mention of blocking questions vs. implementation questions carves out scope. It does not explicitly name siblings like resolve_question or questions, so the agent must infer the distinction, but the core purpose is 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?

It offers one concrete usage rule ("Use implementation=true for questions deliberately left to the implementer") and implies when a blocking question applies. There is no when-not guidance and no explicit alternative tool named, so usage is only partially implied.

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