import_question

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Import' implies a write operation, the description doesn't specify permissions needed, whether this creates or overwrites existing questions, error conditions, or what happens after import. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately sized with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. The structure is logical and front-loaded with the main functionality. However, the parameter explanations could be more concise (e.g., 'base64 encoded' could be integrated into the main sentence).

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after import, what format the question file should be in beyond 'base64 encoded', error handling, or success indicators. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively.

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?

The description provides parameter names and brief explanations (e.g., 'The survey ID', 'The group ID', 'The question file content'), which adds meaning beyond the schema's 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't explain format expectations (e.g., what 'base64 encoded' means for the file, valid ID ranges) or relationships between parameters.

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 action ('Import a question') and target resource ('to a LimeSurvey survey'), providing specific verb+resource pairing. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'import_group' or 'import_survey' beyond mentioning 'question' specifically.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or when other import tools might be more appropriate. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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