karea_create_question

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

No annotations are present, so the description must bear the full burden. It discloses that the tool creates an 'open question' (implying non-final state) and returns a short ID. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, idempotency, or behavior on duplicate questions. The description adds some value but lacks depth for a mutation tool.

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?

Single, well-structured sentence. Front-loaded with the main action, followed by optional details and return value. No wasted words.

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 simple creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and return value. However, it omits prerequisites (e.g., project must exist), required parameter emphasis (question is required), and error scenarios (e.g., invalid taskIds). With 4 parameters and no annotations, additional context would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds marginal value by mentioning that linking to tasks is optional and that the question is 'open'. Since the schema already explains parameters well, the description does not significantly enhance understanding.

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 verb 'Create', the resource 'open question' (a decision/blocker), the scope 'in a project', and the optional linking to tasks. It also specifies the return value (short ID like KAQ3). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like karea_answer_question (answering) and karea_ask (general asking).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. While the description mentions optional linking to tasks, it does not provide criteria for choosing this tool over karea_add_requisite or karea_ask. The agent must infer usage from context.

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