add_choice_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. It only implies a write operation ('Add') but does not mention side effects, ordering behavior, whether it requires an existing form, or how it interacts with other items. This is a significant gap 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?

The description is one short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. While it is efficient, it may be too terse given the tool's complexity, but conciseness itself is strong.

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?

This tool has 9 parameters, 4 required, no annotations, and a similar sibling (add_multiple_choice_question). The description never explains how to invoke it properly, what the output schema provides (though an output schema exists), or how it differs from alternatives. Essential context for an agent to select and use the tool correctly is missing.

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 low (11%), with only 'index' briefly described in the schema. The description adds minimal parameter meaning by hinting at 'choiceType' and 'options' via the phrase 'radio, checkbox, or dropdown choices', but it fails to explain the other nine parameters such as formId, questionTitle, shuffle, and required.

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 ('Add') and resource ('radio, checkbox, or dropdown choices'), making the core function clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'add_multiple_choice_question', but the enumerated choice types provide some distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_multiple_choice_question or add_scale_question. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context in which this tool is preferred.

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