Assign an installed theme to a survey

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

With annotations only declaring the safety profile, the description carries the real behavioral burden and delivers: it discloses the LimeSurvey quirk that the API answers {"template": true} even when it keeps another theme, and defines three distinct failure modes (THEME_NOT_APPLIED, THEME_NOT_VERIFIED with written: true, THEME_PREVIOUS_UNKNOWN with written: false). This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior annotations cannot express.

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?

Purpose and workflow are front-loaded, then error semantics, then the exclusion note. Every sentence is load-bearing given the error codes, but the error paragraph is dense and could be grouped more readably. Appropriately sized for the complexity.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still covers the critical read-back semantics and error taxonomy an agent needs to interpret results. Combined with the mechanism steps and the inherit exclusion, nothing required to call and interpret this tool correctly is missing.

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%, so the schema documents theme_name and confirm_theme_assignment but not survey_id. The description adds real value for theme_name by cross-referencing its source ('installed_theme_name of limesurvey_generate_survey_theme') and the name pattern example. It leaves confirm_theme_assignment and survey_id to the schema, so it adds meaning but not full coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Assign an already imported LimeSurvey survey theme') and spells out the actual mechanism (read previous_theme, set via set_survey_properties, read back). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly excluding theme upload/install and routing the 'inherit' case to limesurvey_set_survey_properties. An agent can tell this apart from generate/validate theme or generic set_survey_properties without opening a 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?

It gives concrete when/when-not guidance: 'inherit is refused; set it with limesurvey_set_survey_properties or in the admin interface' and 'This does not upload or install the theme package.' These exclusions route the agent correctly. It stops short of a full decision map to other theme siblings (e.g. list_installed_themes as a prerequisite), so not quite a 5.

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