surveymonkey_patch_survey

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the PATCH semantics and that only provided fields are changed, which is helpful. However, it does not mention authorization requirements, error behavior, idempotency, or what happens with unsupported fields.

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 with the core purpose. The Args section and example are cleanly structured with no redundant sentences, making it easy for an agent to scan and apply.

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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential operational details: what the tool does, how to specify the patch, and common fields. It is missing explicit guidance on when to prefer the full-update sibling, but overall it is adequate 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?

The schema provides zero parameter descriptions, but the description fully compensates: it explains survey_id as the survey identifier and defines patch as an object containing only fields to change. It adds practical value by listing common fields and giving a concrete example.

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 action and resource: 'Partially updates a survey (PATCH).' The word 'Partially' directly distinguishes this from the sibling update_survey tool, so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting schemas.

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 clearly establishes the usage context: partial, field-level updates via a patch object containing only the fields to change. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide a 'when not to use' statement, but the partial-update framing makes the intended use obvious enough.

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