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

The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: it clarifies that this is a copy operation (not a move) and that it produces a new draft, leaving the original untouched. This is useful since annotations only indicate non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive properties without explaining the actual behavior.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then specifies the scope and result. Every word contributes to the meaning; there is no redundancy or 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 simple clone tool, the description covers the core behavior and scope. However, it does not mention the return value (e.g., the new survey's ID), which is commonly expected for a creation tool, and there is no output schema to compensate. This is a minor gap.

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%, with both parameters (survey_id and optional title) fully described in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what is already in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'deep-copy' and resource 'survey', and enumerates what is copied (questions, answers, targeting, skip logic). It clearly distinguishes this from creating a survey from scratch by noting the result is 'a new draft', though it doesn't explicitly name sibling 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 implies usage for duplicating an existing survey into a draft, but it never explicitly contrasts with alternatives like create_survey or create_survey_from_template. There is no 'use this when…' guidance or mention of when not to use it.

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