iva_conference_questionnaire

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only indicates that 'get' is read-like and 'save_answers' is write-like, but does not explain side effects of saving, whether answers are overwritten, permission requirements, or the need for confirmation. 'Clients API v2.28.12' adds version context but no behavioral insight.

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 very concise and front-loaded with the core operations. The 'Clients API v2.28.12' sentence adds limited value, but the overall length is appropriate and easy to parse.

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 tool with a mutating action, multiple parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits behavioral effects, return information, and usage prerequisites, leaving the agent to rely entirely on the schema for operational context.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all four parameters, including the action enum, conferenceSessionId UUID, answersData, and confirm. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states concrete operations ('get questionnaire, save questionnaire answers') on a specific resource, making the tool's purpose clear at a glance. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like iva_conference_session or iva_conference_inquiry, but the resource name 'questionnaire' is specific enough to avoid major ambiguity.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than explicit: an agent can infer that this tool is for questionnaire read/write operations. However, the description gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over related conference siblings, and it does not mention prerequisites such as needing a conferenceSessionId or when confirm is required.

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