Update Satisfaction Survey

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

Annotations indicate a non-read-only, idempotent operation, but the description adds crucial behavioral detail: the PUT is a full-replacement, so customer_id and ticket_id must be re-sent to preserve linkage. This goes beyond the annotations by revealing the destructive nature of omitting fields.

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: the first states the endpoint and purpose; the second gives the critical caveat and prerequisite tool reference. No fluff, well front-loaded, and structurally clear.

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 a 10-parameter schema fully described and annotations covering idempotency and openness, the description provides the essential full-replacement warning and the read-first step. However, it doesn't mention the response format or error cases, which would be helpful but isn't strictly required given the rich schema.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description reinforces the importance of customer_id and ticket_id but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema states (e.g., 'Required: PUT is a full-replacement operation').

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 ('Update an existing satisfaction survey by ID') and specifies the resource and ID parameter. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing the PUT method and full-replacement semantics, making it unambiguous against create/get/list survey tools.

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 description explicitly instructs to 'Read the survey first via gorgias_get_satisfaction_survey to obtain the IDs,' naming the alternative tool to use beforehand. It also explains the full-replacement requirement, giving clear context for when this update should be performed.

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