update_survey_metadata

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying that explicit common arguments override matching keys in metadata and that date fields require MySQL datetime format. Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false.

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 concise sentences: first provides purpose and structure, second adds a critical format requirement. 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, key parameter behaviors, and format constraints. While the tool has 7 parameters and a nested object, the description adequately explains the common fields and metadata interaction. No output schema, but annotations provide safety 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the description adds format constraints for date parameters and explains the metadata object's semantics (raw fields, override behavior), which is meaningful beyond the schema alone.

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 'Update survey-definition metadata' and specifies that common fields are exposed directly while metadata accepts additional Qualtrics fields. It distinguishes the tool as metadata-focused, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'update_survey' tool.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the structure of metadata but does not provide context for preferred usage or exclusions.

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