survey_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions that a mismatch in group_id leads to a 403 error, which is good. However, it does not disclose other critical behaviors, such as whether the operation is destructive, whether it requires authentication, or what side effects it has (e.g., does it modify something?).

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 very short (two sentences), which is good for conciseness. However, it lacks structure and important information about parameters. It is not overly verbose, but it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 tool's complexity (3 parameters, 1 required) and the existence of an output schema, the description should at least cover the key parameters and explain the return value context. It barely addresses the group_id constraint but ignores dsl and creator_id, leaving the agent without sufficient guidance for correct invocation.

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%, meaning the description must explain all parameters. It only briefly mentions group_id and its constraint but says nothing about dsl (the required parameter) or creator_id. The description fails to add meaningful context beyond what the schema provides for dsl and creator_id.

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 ('Create a survey') and the method ('from DSL'). It also mentions a key constraint about the group_id. However, it does not distinguish it from sibling tools like survey_validate_dsl or survey_agent_get, which are related but handle different aspects of surveys.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It mentions a specific constraint (group_id must match or be omitted) but does not explain the context or prerequisites for using the tool, such as when a group_id is needed or what happens if it is omitted.

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