update_survey_options

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

The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations, such as the default recursive merge and the effect of the replace parameter. Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive, and the description aligns with them.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then delivering critical nuance. Every word is meaningful, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 25 parameters, no output schema, and nested objects, the description covers the key behavioral details (safe merge, replace option). It is mostly complete for decision-making, though it could mention return values or common error scenarios.

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 explains each parameter. The description adds value by explaining the 'replace' parameter's role in the overall behavior, but does not elaborate on other parameters beyond the schema.

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 'Safely patch survey options', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like update_survey and get_survey_options by emphasizing the patch/merge behavior.

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 explains how to use the tool: by default it merges safely, and setting replace=true allows full replacement. It provides context for when to use each mode, though it does not explicitly compare to alternatives.

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