Run a survey again as a new one

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

Annotations only indicate that this is a non-read, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description goes far beyond that by disclosing that the clone does not inherit archived state or expiry, keeps original colors without a theme, and that the returned admin link is a credential. This is valuable behavioral context for an agent.

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 the core behavior in the first sentence. Every subsequent sentence adds distinct value: usage guidance, edge-case behavior, theme default, and a security warning. No sentence is wasted.

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 four-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the operation does, what the result looks like, important inheritance exceptions, theme behavior, and the security implications of the returned link. It also points to the correct alternative sibling. Nothing critical is missing.

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 schema already fully documents all four parameters. The description adds only minor reinforcement about theme defaulting behavior, but does not materially extend what the schema provides. Baseline 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 a specific action (copy a survey's questions into a brand new survey), names the key result attributes (own link, own admin token, no responses), and distinguishes itself from the sibling save_survey_as_template. An agent can tell what this tool does 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?

It explicitly says when to use this tool ('run the same poll a second time') and when not to ('use save_survey_as_template instead when it will run repeatedly'). The edge case about expired surveys and active subscriptions adds further contextual guidance.

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