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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and the toggle wording is consistent with a non-destructive reversible state flip. The description does not disclose what happens to existing answers or pending requests when a form is deactivated, nor whether any permission is required, so it adds only modest context beyond the annotations.

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?

One short sentence with zero filler and the core behavior front-loaded. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves no room for the state-change consequences an agent would find useful.

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 one-parameter toggle with annotations covering the safety profile and full schema coverage, the essentials are present. However, with no output schema the agent gets no hint of what the call returns, and the effect of deactivation on existing submissions is left unstated.

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 single formId parameter already has a complete schema description pointing at list_anamnesis_forms, so the schema does the work. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter — no note on whether it identifies by id versus slug or what happens with an invalid id.

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 gives a specific verb (switches) plus the resource (anamnesis form) and names the two states it moves between, so the agent knows this is a binary activation toggle. It stops short of differentiating itself from the close sibling update_anamnesis_form, which likely can also change activation state.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it wants a form turned on or off. There is no explicit statement of prerequisites (does the form need to exist first?), no mention of update_anamnesis_form as the alternative for other edits, and no guidance for the already-active/already-inactive case.

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