add_descriptive_text_question

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

With only destructiveHint=false in annotations, the description adds value by warning about JavaScript escaping (avoid `$`). But it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as input validation, size limits, or side effects beyond creation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and common uses. Minor extra context (e.g., 'simplified helper') could be justified, but overall 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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and a moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, common usage, and a key behavioral hint (JS escaping). It could be more complete by noting return value or limitations, but is sufficient for a helper 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 description coverage is 100%, so the description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema. The only addition is a JS escaping tip, which is already partially covered in the schema description. Baseline 3 applies.

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 tool creates a descriptive text (DB/TB) question, specifying its common uses (instructions, processing screens, HTML content, optional JS). This distinct verb+resource purpose differentiates it from sibling question-adding tools.

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 usage context by listing typical use cases (instructions, processing screens, HTML/Javascript). However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or direct comparison to alternatives like other question types.

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