send_survey

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

Annotations already indicate it is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds the requirement WRITE_ENABLED=true, which is a useful prerequisite but does not describe side effects, return behavior, or reversibility. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The primary action and the key prerequisite are front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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 relatively simple write operation, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks any mention of validation (e.g., user must be active, survey must be published), expected effects (e.g., creates a record, triggers notification), or error conditions. With no output schema, an agent might need more context to handle failures.

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% and each parameter (user, metric_type, fields, trigger_id, trigger_table) has a description. The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline without adding value.

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 clearly states the action: 'Issue a survey/assessment instance to a user' and identifies the underlying table (asmt_assessment_instance). This is a specific verb+resource, and the parenthetical clarifies the internal object. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_survey (which likely defines the survey) and get_survey_results (which retrieves results), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites beyond the WRITE_ENABLED flag, nor does it state when to choose this over create_survey or list_assessments. The agent must infer from the name and context.

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