Rename a survey

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

Beyond the annotations, the description explicitly states that public links, admin links, and existing responses are unaffected, and explains why the title is not a key. This directly addresses the main concern an agent would have about renaming, adding valuable context that readOnlyHint and destructiveHint alone do not provide.

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 sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the action directly; the second sentence earns its place by explaining the non-destructive consequences. The most important behavioral information is front-loaded.

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 simple two-parameter rename operation, the description covers the essential behavioral context: what changes, what does not change, and why. Combined with the fully described schema and safety-related annotations, nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly 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?

The schema already documents both id and title with examples and length limits, so the baseline is 3. The description adds conceptual meaning by clarifying that title is not a key for any data association, which helps the agent understand that changing it is safe with respect to responses and links.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Change a survey's title,' which exactly matches the tool name and differentiates it from the broad update_survey sibling. It clearly states the single operation performed, leaving no ambiguity about scope.

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 makes the intended use clear: call this when you need to rename a survey. It does not explicitly name update_survey as the alternative for other modifications, but the title-only scope is obvious and no misleading guidance is present.

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