forms_add_question

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It lists allowed types but does not explain side effects like whether the question is appended or inserted at a specific index, whether options are required for choice types, or any permission requirements. The relationship between the 'paragraph' boolean and 'question_type' is left ambiguous.

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 extremely short (one sentence), which is concise, but it under-specifies the tool's behavior. The list of types is useful, but the lack of any structured guidance makes it feel incomplete rather than appropriately concise.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters and an output schema, but the description fails to explain key aspects like index semantics, option requirements, or how paragraph interacts with question_type. For a moderate-complexity tool with no annotation support, this description is insufficient for an agent to use it correctly in varied scenarios.

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 0%, and the description only lists type names, which loosely maps to question_type. It does not explain parameters like index, options, required, or paragraph, leaving most parameter semantics undocumented. The description adds minimal value beyond the raw schema.

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 ('Add a question to a form') and lists supported question types, giving a specific verb and resource. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like forms_update_question, but the verb 'add' makes the core purpose clear.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., forms_update_question for modifying existing questions). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing a form_id, or when to choose this over forms_create or other form-related tools.

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