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

The description goes well beyond the minimal annotations by disclosing that the tool operates conversationally, refuses active forms, and may either execute immediately or file an approval proposal depending on organization settings. It also tells the agent that the response status field indicates which path occurred, which is critical for interpreting the result.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, restriction, and execution-mode behavior. The most important distinguishing trait ('DRAFT form') is front-loaded, and the response-handling note is succinctly placed at the end. No filler or redundancy.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the behavioral nuances an agent needs: draft-only target, possible approval workflow, and how to determine the outcome. The schema covers parameter details, and no critical missing context remains for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% documentation coverage for all five parameters, including detailed descriptions for formId, eventId, request_id, and instruction. The description adds contextual framing around formId (draft-only) and instruction (natural-language edit), but does not add new parameter-level meaning 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 states a specific action ('edit'), a specific resource ('a DRAFT form'), and the mechanism ('by instruction'), making it distinct from create_form and update_form_pipeline. The additional 'Active forms are refused' clarifies the exact scope of the 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?

The description clearly indicates when to use the tool: for draft forms only, with natural-language instructions. It explicitly calls out the exclusion of active forms, giving an unambiguous when-not. It does not name alternative tools for active-form edits, but the context is clear enough.

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