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

The description explicitly warns that 'Providing questions replaces all existing questions,' adding concrete destructive behavior beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation. It does not mention that other array fields (variables, hidden_fields, ending_screens) also replace all, but the annotation already signals destructiveness and the schema provides those details.

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?

The description is only two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes a critical caveat without wasted words. Every clause earns its place.

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 complex tool with 9 parameters and deeply nested objects, the description is quite brief and slightly imprecise: 'logic' is not a top-level parameter, and it omits 'variables' and 'hidden_fields' from the list of updatable sections. The rich schema and destructive annotation compensate partially, but the concise description alone is not fully complete for such a complex tool.

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 high (89%), so the baseline is 3. The description's list of updatable fields is a useful summary, and the question-replacement caveat is valuable but already present in the schema's questions parameter description. It does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and clearly identifies the resource ('a survey') while enumerating the updatable aspects: title, questions, settings, styles, screens, or logic. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_survey, delete_survey, and duplicate_survey.

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 phrase 'Update a survey's' clearly implies the tool is for modifying an existing survey, which distinguishes it from create/delete siblings. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the usage context is unambiguous enough for an agent.

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