submit_survey

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a write (recording an answer) but never says whether re-submitting the same question overwrites a previous answer, whether the saved_workout_id must exist, or whether submissions are rate-limited or final.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the action and folds the score scale into the same clause. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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 three-required-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description says too little: not what happens on duplicate submission, not whether the score is retrievable later, not what a successful call returns. An agent could call it, but not confidently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all three params. It adds the direction of the scale (1=worst, 5=best) beyond the bare min/max bounds, but leaves saved_workout_id and the meaning of 'question' (the enum values are only self-evident by name) undocumented.

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 ('answer/submit') and resource ('one readiness question for a saved workout') with the score scale, which is enough to separate it from read-side siblings like get_workout_surveys. It never explicitly names a sibling or contrast, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 'one readiness question' implies a one-call-per-question granularity, which is a usable usage hint. But there is no statement of when to use this versus save_workout_feedback or get_workout_surveys, and no preconditions (e.g., workout must already be saved).

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