surveymonkey_update_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the operation updates a page and lists updatable fields, but it does not mention permissions, partial-update semantics, side effects, error conditions, or what happens to unspecified fields. This is a minimal disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 efficient. The first sentence states the core operation, and the argument list adds necessary parameter details without any filler or redundant explanation.

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 covers the operation, parameters, and payload fields, and an output schema exists so return-value documentation is not required. However, with no annotations and no usage alternatives or behavioral caveats, the description leaves some gaps around edge cases and update semantics. It is adequate for a simple update tool but not fully comprehensive.

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 gives brief but meaningful explanations for each argument: survey_id, page_id, and payload. It also enumerates the acceptable payload fields ('title', 'description', 'position'), adding value beyond the bare schema. It could specify types or constraints for those fields, but it provides useful semantics.

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 the action: 'Updates a page in a survey (PATCH).' It identifies the specific resource (page), the parent context (survey), and the HTTP method, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_page, delete_page, and get_page.

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 for modifying an existing page, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over related tools such as update_survey or create_page, nor any exclusion criteria. The usage context is only implied by the verb 'Updates' and the resource type.

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