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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is partly covered, but the description adds real behavioral detail the annotations cannot: the embed renders nothing afterward and existing leads remain attached to their records. It stops short of stating whether the deletion is reversible or what happens to form submission history, so it is not a 5.

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 tight sentences, with the permanence and the lead-retention reassurance front-loaded before the parameter note. The final 'Pass the form's id or slug' sentence duplicates the schema and is the only wasted line, keeping this just under a 5.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and annotations already covering the safety profile, the description supplies the two things an agent most needs: permanence and the effect on the embed and on leads. Reversibility and any post-delete response are unaddressed, so it is complete enough but not exhaustive.

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% and the single parameter is already documented as 'Form id or slug'. The description's 'Pass the form's id or slug' restates the schema rather than adding accepted formats, lookup behavior, or error conditions, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 a form') and immediately scopes it as permanent ('for good'), which separates it from siblings like update_form, duplicate_a_form, and get_a_form. It also pins the semantics to the familiar forms-list Delete, so an agent knows exactly which operation this mirrors.

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 conveys what this delete does versus the UI action and rules out the fear that deleting a form loses leads, which is genuine usage context. However, it never names alternatives or states when to prefer this over update_form, duplicate_a_form, or leaving the form published, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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