copy_survey

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

The description mentions what is preserved but does not disclose behavioral traits beyond annotations (destructiveHint=false). It lacks details on the return value, prerequisites, or potential side effects like clone limits or activation status. Annotations are minimal, so description carries burden but adds only partial transparency.

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, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key behavioral context. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the action and what is preserved but omits return value details and prerequisites. It is adequate but incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior without additional context.

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 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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 clearly states the tool creates a complete copy of an existing survey, preserving complex aspects. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_survey (new) and update_survey (modify) by focusing on copying and preserving settings without individual endpoints.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need to copy a survey while preserving complex question types, scoring, flow, styling, and settings that lack individual mutation endpoints. It provides good context for choosing this over alternatives, though it does not explicitly list when not to use it.

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