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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, closed-world). The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: publish exposes only the form and nothing else of the document, invalid forms are refused with what to fix, and delete_link is recoverable because republishing mints a new link. It doesn't cover rate limits or auth requirements, but the gap is minor.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the three actions, then the precondition, then the return. Every sentence earns its place; the final fragment 'Answers its state, link and response count' is terse to the point of being clipped but still informative.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it still gestures at them. Actions, preconditions, failure behavior, and the visibility consequence of publishing are all covered; only the relationship to sibling form tools (change_form, read_form) is left implicit.

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%, including per-enum semantics for action and the tab-defaulting rule, so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description restates the action meanings but adds no syntax or format detail the schema lacks. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb (publish/close/delete link) on a specific resource (a form) and enumerates all three modes with their effects, so an agent knows exactly what each call does. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the nearby siblings change_form, read_form, or add_form, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

It gives clear per-action context (publish = anyone can fill, close = link retained with closed message, delete_link = link removed and republishing creates a new one) plus a precondition: the form must have questions and a response destination, or the call is refused with remediation. It lacks explicit when-to-use-this-vs-another-tool guidance or named alternatives.

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