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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description earns that by explaining exactly which argument triggers destructiveness and why (immediate attendee visibility) – a real addition beyond the flag. It stops short of noting that drafts are reversible or how authorization/moderators are affected.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the default behavior and the destructive caveat front-loaded before any elaboration. Every sentence carries distinct decision-relevant information.

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?

With an output schema present and full schema descriptions, the description needs only cover defaults and risk, which it does. It could mention that an empty survey has no questions until template_id or create_question is used, but the schema already handles that.

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 baseline is 3; the description still adds semantic weight by tying publish=true to an irreversible, attendee-visible outcome rather than merely 'publish immediately'. Remaining parameters are left entirely to the (already thorough) 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?

States a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('survey') scoped to an event, and immediately clarifies the default draft outcome. An agent can distinguish this from publish_survey, close_survey, and create_question without opening the schema.

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 clear conditional guidance: default is draft, pass publish=true for immediate publication. It does not, however, route the agent to the publish_survey sibling for surveys that already exist, so the alternative-selection story is incomplete.

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