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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: it discloses that the draft REPLACES the study's current questions (matching destructiveHint=true) but that 'nothing fields until publish', notes it consumes inference credit, and warns it 'May return needs_confirmation'. These are the kinds of side-effect, cost, and state caveats the annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then layers prerequisites, optional steer, cost, and the confirmation caveat in dense, non-redundant sentences. No filler.

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 destructive, credit-consuming, no-output-schema tool, it covers side effects, prerequisites, cost, and the possible confirmation return. The only gap is that the approvalId/confirmation handshake and studyId semantics are not fully spelled out.

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 only 25% (only workspace is documented), so the description carries extra burden. It explains the steer parameter's intent ('biases the instrument, focus on pricing') and implies the confirmation flow tied to approvalId, but studyId and approvalId semantics remain undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (drafts a survey from the study's completed interviews) and qualifies the scope ('GROUNDED in completed interviews'). The 'from_interviews' framing and the note that claims become questions clearly separate it from sibling draft tools like prism_studies_draft and prism_studies_draft_standalone.

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite ('Needs at least one completed interview') and routes the agent to prism_interviews_list, plus explains the optional steer with an example. It never explicitly contrasts with prism_studies_draft or prism_studies_draft_standalone, so the alternative-selection guidance is only implied.

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