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

Goes beyond the annotations (destructive/not-readOnly/idempotent) by clarifying the operation is permanent ('for good') and by disclosing the side effect that the form starts accepting entries again once space is freed. Auth specifics (passport_token fallback) remain only in the schema.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the destructive action and its range, with no filler. Phrasing like 'up to and including through' is slightly awkward but still parses.

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 three-parameter destructive tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers permanence, deletion range, and the post-deletion side effect. Nothing critical to correct invocation is missing, though naming the sibling read tool would help.

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 all three parameters are already documented, including 'through' meaning 'this one and all older ones'. The description largely restates that boundary rather than adding new syntax or format meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (delete form inbox entries) plus the exact scope of the deletion ('every entry up to and including through'). It is clearly distinct from the read-only sibling form_submissions and from delete_utility_data, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Offers an implied trigger ('for example after you exported them') and a capacity note ('a full form takes new entries again once there is room'), which hints at when to run it. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. use form_submissions to read first).

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