Add Reading Question

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It transparently states that the tool performs an insert, so the mutating behavior is clear. However, it does not disclose return values, validation failures, whether duplicate inserts are allowed, or any required permissions or side effects beyond insertion.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 straightforward insert tool with a fully covered schema, the description communicates the essential purpose and required data. It lacks return/error behavior, but given the simple insert semantics and the absence of an output schema, the definition is sufficiently complete. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit guidance on the result of a successful insert.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters in detail. The description maps the core fields (passage, question, answer options, correct index) but adds little meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It omits mention of 'level' and 'sortOrder', but the schema covers those clearly.

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 states a specific verb ('Inserts a new reading comprehension question'), the exact resource ('the reading_questions table'), and the key data to provide. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling read-only tools like cl_get_reading_questions and from the more generic cl_add_content.

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 implies its use case: adding a reading comprehension question. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over cl_add_content, nor does it state exclusions such as 'Do not use for non-reading content' or 'Use cl_get_reading_questions to retrieve existing questions.' The usage context is implied but not made explicit.

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