Close a survey

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: the public link remains functional and shows the survey as closed, results remain readable via get_survey_results, and reopen_survey can undo the action unless the expiry date has passed. This clarifies the meaning of destructiveHint by showing exactly what is and isn't affected.

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?

Three tightly written sentences carry all the essential information: the main action, the side effects on the public link and results, and the undo path with an important caveat. There is 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?

For a single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what changes, what remains unchanged, how to read results afterward, and how to undo the action. The expiry caveat is especially valuable because it defines the limits of reversibility.

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%, and the single id parameter is already fully documented with type, minLength, and an example. The tool description itself adds no extra parameter semantics, 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 a specific action ('Stop a survey from accepting new responses') and clearly identifies the resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning reopen_survey as the undo operation and get_survey_results as the continuing read path.

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 clearly establishes when to use the tool: when the survey should no longer accept responses. It also gives useful context about the public link continuing to work and explicitly names reopen_survey as the reversal path, including the expiry exception. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it relative to archive_survey, but the intended use is unambiguous.

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