surveymonkey_delete_response

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It prominently warns that the operation is irreversible, which is the most critical behavioral trait for a delete operation. It does not detail permissions or cascading effects, but the irreversibility warning provides strong transparency.

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 short and front-loaded with the irreversible warning, which is appropriate for a destructive tool. The Args block is slightly redundant with the input schema, but it keeps the essential information immediately visible without unnecessary prose.

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 simple two-parameter delete tool, the description covers the core action, the irreversibility, and the required identifiers. However, it lacks any usage context, alternative tool routing, or behavior on failure, and the output schema does not fully compensate for the missing operational context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the schema's lack of detail. However, the 'Args' section only restates the parameter names with trivial descriptions: 'Survey ID' and 'Response ID to delete.' It adds no meaningful information about formats, constraints, or usage beyond what the parameter titles already provide.

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 'Permanently deletes a specific response,' identifying the action, resource, and permanence. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like get_response or list_responses by making the destructive intent explicit.

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 does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_response or list_responses. The context of 'deletes' implies usage, but there is no guidance on conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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