Copy survey

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds value annotations do not carry: it names the underlying LimeSurvey RemoteControl method `copy_survey` and states the authentication model (service account, no session key supplied by the caller). It does not say what else is duplicated (groups, questions, settings) or that repeated calls create additional copies.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and zero filler. The authentication caveat is the only addition and it earns its place by preventing an incorrect session-key argument.

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, so return values need no explanation; the schema documents the parameters, and the annotations carry the safety semantics. What remains—purpose, invocation mechanics, auth model—is covered, making this complete for a simple copy operation.

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%, so all four parameters (including the optional `destination_survey_id` and the enum-backed `response_format`) are documented in the schema itself, making 3 the baseline. The description only echoes the `new_name` concept and adds no syntax, constraints, or meaning beyond the schema.

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 and resource ("Copy an existing survey") plus the resulting scope ("under a new name"), so the action is unambiguous. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings like limesurvey_add_survey, limesurvey_import_survey, or limesurvey_create_survey_from_spec, which an agent might also reach for when duplicating survey content.

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?

No when-to-use statement and no named alternatives; the only explicit guidance is operational ("Authentication uses the configured service account; do not provide a session key"). The use case (duplicating an existing survey) is implied by the verb but not contrasted with import/create alternatives, so the agent must infer routing.

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