survey_agent_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the POST method workaround for PUT issues, which is useful behavioral context. However, it omits details like whether the update is destructive, requires authentication, or returns the updated survey.

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?

Extremely concise (one line), front-loads the verb and resource. Every word adds value except possibly the technical note in parentheses, which is context-dependent (may be noise for non-deployment agents).

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?

Given the output schema exists, return values are covered. However, with 2 undocumented parameters and no behavioral details (idempotency, success/error), the description is incomplete for a mutation tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations.

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 0%, but the description adds zero details about parameters. It does not explain what `dsl` expects (JSON string, DSL syntax) or what `survey_id` identifies. The agent must guess parameter meanings.

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 survey DSL') and the HTTP method ('POST; nginx often 405s PUT'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like `survey_agent_get` and `survey_agent_settings_save` by focusing on DSL updates, though it could explicitly differentiate from `survey_agent_settings_save` and `survey_create`.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `survey_create` (new survey) or `survey_agent_settings_save` (settings only). The HTTP method advisory is helpful for deployment but lacks broader context on prerequisites or scenarios.

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