submit_survey

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Submit...' without detailing permissions, idempotency, side effects (e.g., whether an existing answer is overwritten), or the relationship between saved_workout_id and the survey. The provided ID mappings are helpful but do not address behavioral traits.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded, with the primary action in the first sentence. The subsequent lines list ID mappings, which are essential and clearly structured. No filler or redundant information.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and parameter meanings but lacks important context: no mention of return values (no output schema), no preconditions (e.g., workout must exist), and no usage guidance. For a simple submission tool, it is functional but leaves gaps that could confuse an agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It maps question_id to specific survey questions (8=Sleep, etc.) and answer_id to rating labels (1=Awful...5=Excellent), which directly adds meaning. However, it doesn't explain saved_workout_id beyond implying it's a workout identifier, leaving that parameter underspecified.

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 tool's action: 'Submit a readiness/recovery survey answer for a workout.' It specifies the verb (submit), resource (survey answer), and context (for a workout). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_workout_surveys (which retrieves surveys) and log_workout (which logs workouts).

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 implies when to use the tool: when submitting a survey answer for a workout. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. For instance, it doesn't say to use get_workout_surveys to read existing answers. This is valid but slightly lacking in explicit guidance.

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