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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds value beyond them: it discloses that attached answers are deleted too (cascading destruction) and that the form_responses:write scope is required. These are exactly the destructive semantics and auth needs an agent needs, not restatements of 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and destructive side effect before the usage condition and scope requirement. No sentence is filler.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, usage precondition, and auth scope—everything needed to call it correctly. It does not address behavior when no form is attached, a minor omission.

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 schema itself explains how to resolve the id ('via list_form_responses filtered by subject_id'). The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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?

It names a specific verb (remove/delete) and resource (the form/form response on a record), and specifies scope: 'along with any answers already given.' The singular phrasing 'Remove a form' rather than 'form response' is slightly loose versus the tool name, but an agent can still distinguish this from delete_form_template.

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?

Gives an explicit usage condition: 'Use this before attaching a different form, since a record holds at most one form.' This is a clear when-to-use signal tied to a real constraint. It does not name alternative tools or a when-not-to-use case, keeping it short of a 5.

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