safe_mind_create_survey

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose two valuable traits: departments are auto-created as a side effect if missing, and the returned edit/preview links are usable while the survey stays in draft until the owner starts it. It omits auth/permission requirements and what happens on conflicting inputs, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and each following clause (auto-create, return links, start-elsewhere) adding distinct value. No redundancy 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?

Despite 7 parameters and no output schema, the description usefully implies the return payload (edit and preview links) and the draft lifecycle. However, it leaves most parameters, permissions, and failure behavior unaddressed, so it is only adequate rather than complete for a mutation tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is 29%, so the description is expected to compensate, yet it only clarifies one parameter ('departments are passed by name'). startDate, durationWeeks, employeeCount, locations, title, and analyticsMinThreshold are left to sparse schema notes, so the semantic gap remains large.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Create a survey draft') with domain context ('for the psychological risk assessment') and a lifecycle qualifier ('draft') that distinguishes it from the read-only siblings get_survey and list_surveys. An agent can tell exactly what this tool produces without opening the schema.

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 states what happens but gives no when-to-use guidance or alternative routing. It never says when to reach for this versus list_surveys/get_survey, nor any prerequisite (e.g. account ownership, existing locations). The note that the survey 'is started by the account owner in the Safe Mind app' hints at workflow but is not usage guidance.

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