surveymonkey_send_collector_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the send goes to all recipients and that an empty scheduled_date means immediate sending. However, it does not mention that sending is a side-effectful, likely irreversible action or that a message must already exist for the collector, and there are no annotations to fill that gap.

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 a one-sentence action followed by three tight parameter bullets. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, so every line earns its place.

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 send operation, the description captures the core action and parameter semantics, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. However, it omits the workflow context that an agent needs: that a message should be created first, that the collector must have recipients, and that sending may have external consequences.

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?

Since the input schema has 0% description coverage, the Args block is essential. It clarifies message_id as the message to send and scheduled_date as an ISO 8601 datetime with an explicit default behavior. collector_id is mostly a restatement of the schema title, but the other parameter meanings are meaningfully expanded.

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 'Sends an email message to all recipients of a collector,' which is a specific verb, resource, and scope. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like surveymonkey_create_collector_message and surveymonkey_list_collector_messages.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to call create_collector_message first or list_collector_messages. The only signal is the verb 'sends,' so usage context is implied rather than explained.

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