Add survey response

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context: the underlying RemoteControl method name and the fact that authentication is handled by a configured service account so no session key is passed. It stops short of saying what happens to duplicate submissions or how failures surface.

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 with the action front-loaded and no filler; the auth caveat is placed last where it belongs. It is efficient, though the RemoteControl method-name sentence is only marginally useful to an agent making a selection call.

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, return values need not be described, and the 100%-covered schema handles the parameters. The one thing an agent could easily get wrong in this tool family – passing a session key – is explicitly addressed, so the definition is nearly complete for a 3-param write 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 100% (survey_id, response, response_format are all documented in the schema, including the json/markdown trade-off), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no syntax, format, or field-mapping detail beyond what the schema already states.

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 and resource ('Insert a response into a survey response table'), which pairs with the title 'Add survey response' to make the operation unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the adjacent limesurvey_update_response or limesurvey_delete_response siblings, which share the same resource.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'insert' – there is no explicit when-to-use vs. update_response/delete_response guidance or stated prerequisites (e.g. survey must be active, tokens required). The auth note ('do not provide a session key') is a partial guideline, but it is framed as a usage constraint rather than a scenario selector.

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