surveymonkey_update_question

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says PATCH and 'fields to update', implying a partial mutation, but it does not mention permissions, idempotency, validation, side effects, or response behavior. This leaves significant operational uncertainty.

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 a clear purpose sentence followed by a terse argument list. There is no filler, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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?

Despite having an output schema, this tool has 4 required parameters, a nested payload, and zero annotations. The description omits where the IDs come from, partial-update behavior, prerequisites, and error conditions. It is minimally viable but not complete enough for confident invocation in complex cases.

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 needed to define parameters meaningfully. It merely restates 'Survey ID', 'Page ID', and 'Question ID' without adding semantics, and payload is only delegated to another tool's schema. The payload reference is useful, but the ID descriptions add little beyond the property names.

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 an existing question (PATCH)', giving a specific verb, resource, and HTTP method. 'Existing' clearly distinguishes this from create, delete, and get question siblings.

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 makes the usage context clear: use this when updating an existing question. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous enough to route an agent correctly.

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