setup_questionnaire_fieldwork_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. 'Guarded setup' hints at a dry-run/plan mode, but the description never explains what side effects occur when performed, whether resources are actually created, what 'manual Designer import' entails, or what a successful result looks like. The agent cannot predict the tool's real-world impact.

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 single front-loaded sentence that conveys the tool's scope in a compact, well-structured list. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

This is a multi-step operation with 6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a large sibling set. The description names the components but omits required preconditions, step ordering, failure modes, return behavior, and the meaning of the default dry_run guard. For an orchestration tool, this leaves important gaps that prevent correct invocation.

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 explain the parameters, but it only loosely maps to workspace_name, questionnaire_name, and users. The critical dry_run parameter, plus profile and display_name, are left completely unexplained, leaving the agent without enough meaning to set them correctly.

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 gives a specific action ('Plan or perform guarded setup') and a clear resource ('fieldwork project'), then enumerates the included components: workspace, Designer import, users, and first web-test assignment. This makes the tool's role as a higher-level setup orchestrator distinct from sibling tools like create_workspace, create_user, or create_assignment.

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 phrase 'Plan or perform guarded setup for a fieldwork project' implies when the tool is relevant, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over individual setup tools, nor does it name alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are given, leaving the routing decision mostly to inference.

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