add_constant_sum_question

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false. The description adds compatibility context (legacy vs new experience) which is helpful, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. This is adequate given the annotations.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and then add key usage context. Every word is necessary, no fluff.

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 description covers the question type and variations well. However, it does not mention the return value (e.g., question ID) or any post-creation steps. Given no output schema, this is a minor gap for a creation tool.

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%, so the description does not need to add much. The description explains the concept of constant sum and the effect of the 'selector' parameter, but the schema already provides decent descriptions. This is baseline 3 with no significant extra value.

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 it creates a constant sum question with examples (percentages summing to 100). It distinguishes among siblings like add_multiple_choice_question by specifying the question type. The verb 'create' and resource 'constant sum question' are explicit.

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 provides guidance on when to use the default variation (choices/text-entry) vs legacy variations (bars, sliders). However, it does not explicitly advise against using this tool for non-constant sum questions, though that is implied by the name.

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