surveymonkey_create_collector_message

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 states the action is 'creates' and notes that collector_id must be of type 'email', but it does not disclose side effects, whether the created message is a draft or is immediately sendable, authentication requirements, or failure behavior. This leaves important behavioral context unspecified.

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 compact and front-loaded: the purpose sentence comes first, followed by a structured Args block. Every line serves a purpose, either defining a constraint or documenting a payload field, with no filler or redundant wording.

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 tool with a nested payload and no schema-level descriptions, the definition is largely complete: it covers payload structure, required/optional fields, the type enum, and the collector prerequisite. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. It loses one point because it omits the relationship between creating and sending a message, which is relevant context for correct tool selection.

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 thoroughly documents both parameters. collector_id is explained with the email-type constraint, and payload is broken down field-by-field with required/optional markers, valid enum values, and example values. This fully compensates for the empty schema and gives an agent everything needed to construct a valid payload.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Creates a new email message for a collector.' This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like surveymonkey_send_collector_message, surveymonkey_list_collector_messages, and surveymonkey_create_collector, which act on different entities or actions.

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 when-to-use guidance relative to alternatives. It does not state that creating a message is separate from sending it, nor does it mention when an agent should choose this tool over surveymonkey_send_collector_message or surveymonkey_list_collector_messages. The only weak guidance is the implied purpose from the name and opening sentence.

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