surveymonkey_update_collector

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a PATCH update, but it does not explain side effects, authorization needs, whether the update is partial or full replacement, reversibility, or what the API returns. The field list gives some context but leaves important behavioral traits undisclosed.

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: one clear opening sentence followed by a terse, well-organized argument list. Every line adds useful information, and there is no repetition or filler.

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?

The description is adequate for basic calls: it identifies the two required parameters and the most common updatable fields. However, it omits important operational context such as prerequisites, error behavior, and the effect of omitted fields. Since an output schema exists, return-value documentation is not required, but behavioral gaps keep this from being fully complete.

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. It does a good job of explaining the payload parameter by listing common fields and the status enum values ('open'|'closed'). The collector_id description is thin but adequate, and the payload semantics are meaningfully enriched beyond the bare schema.

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 'Updates a collector (PATCH)', which is a clear verb+resource statement and includes the HTTP method. This immediately distinguishes the tool from sibling get/create/delete/list collector tools, even without mentioning them explicitly.

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 implies the tool is used to modify an existing collector rather than create, read, or delete one, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over create_collector or delete_collector. There are no explicit alternatives or exclusion conditions, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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