add_likert_question

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=false, and the description confirms it's a helper that creates a question (non-destructive). It adds that it uses preset scales but does not detail other behavioral traits like authorization needs or side effects (e.g., no mention of survey modification). Overall adequate but not rich.

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 sentence, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. It could include more detail but remains appropriately concise for a helper tool.

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 is minimal and leaves out return value (no output schema), error handling, and prerequisites (e.g., survey existence). Given the tool has 8 parameters including nested objects, a bit more context would be helpful, but the schema covers the parameter details.

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 parameter descriptions already cover meanings. The description adds slight value by explaining the purpose of preset scales (no manual enumeration), but for other parameters like recodeValues, no extra insight beyond 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 it's a simplified helper to create a single-item Likert scale as MC/SAVR. This distinguishes it from siblings like add_multiple_choice_question (generic) or create_question (generic). The verb 'create' and resource 'Likert scale' are specific.

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 implies usage context: a simplified helper for Likert scales with preset scales, avoiding manual enumeration. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use (e.g., for other question types) or mention alternatives, leaving some room for misinterpretation.

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