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

Annotations already communicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate them. The phrase 'Mark (or unmark)' adds useful context that the operation is a reversible toggle, but it does not disclose side effects or auth requirements beyond what annotations already convey.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the action and object. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant filler or repetition of the title.

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 two-parameter, idempotent flag setter with no output schema, the description and schema together provide enough information to invoke the tool correctly. The only slight gap is the absence of usage guidance relative to sibling template-related tools, but this is a minor omission for such a low-complexity operation.

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 both survey_id and is_template are already well documented in the schema. The description adds no further parameter-level detail, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 action ('Mark (or unmark)') applied to a specific resource ('a survey as a reusable workspace template'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like create_survey_from_template by focusing on toggling a flag rather than creating a new survey from a template.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_survey_from_template or clone_survey. It implies the use case from the wording, but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or when a different tool would be more appropriate.

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