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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), it discloses substantive behavior: publishing creates an immutable version and returns a public URL while sending no email, and archiving halts new answers and audience targeting yet preserves history and personalization withdrawal. This is exactly the side-effect detail an agent needs, and it is consistent with destructiveHint=false.

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 opening sentence front-loads the action and preconditions, and each subsequent clause carries real behavioral information. It is dense but slightly long, with the 'no email sent' clarification and archiving detail adding length without redundancy.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers return value (public URL), side effects, and both action modes, and points to a workflow guide resource. It stops short of explaining expectedRevision conflict handling, leaving one operational 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 67% and the description names surveyId and expectedRevision, mapping them to action intent, but it does not explain what expectedRevision is for (optimistic concurrency) or how the payload must be shaped. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema already documents the action enum and confirmed flag.

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+resource (publish/archive a survey) and names the exact identifiers used (surveyId, expectedRevision). It is easily distinguished from drafting (draft_email_survey) and read-only siblings (inspect_email_surveys) because it explicitly frames the confirmation-gated publish/archive step.

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?

It gives a clear precondition ('After organizer confirmation') and explains downstream context (add the returned URL as a campaign button). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as draft_email_survey or send_email_campaign to route the agent when this step is premature.

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