create_custom_question

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the HTTP endpoint, required bearer auth, a return shape (question array), and 400/403 error meanings, but it does not describe mutation side effects, reversibility, or permission/package requirements beyond the listed errors.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then structured into endpoint, errors, and auth blocks. The extra sections are relevant, though the auth/error listing makes it longer than a minimal purpose statement.

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 create tool with a nested question object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers endpoint, auth, errors, and return type. However, it omits the expected shape of the nested question object and any package/permission details beyond the raw error codes.

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 event_id and the question object. The description repeats event_id in the endpoint path and adds no syntax or structural detail about the question object beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource: "Create a custom question for an Event." This distinguishes it from default-question siblings at a high level, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with create_default_question or explain the custom-vs-default selection.

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 gives endpoint, errors, and authentication, but no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent must infer that this is for event-specific custom questions rather than default questions.

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