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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a mutating, potentially destructive, repeatable-safe operation. The description's only added behavioral fact is the required 'form_templates:write' scope, which is genuinely useful but thin; it says nothing about partial-update semantics or what the destructive flag implies.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and target, with the scope requirement following. Nothing is padded and nothing is wasted.

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?

The schema fully documents the inputs and the annotations carry the safety profile, so the essentials are covered. For a destructive mutation with no output schema, the description still omits whether the update is partial or full-replace and what the destructiveHint risk actually means for callers.

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%, so all six parameters including the enum-constrained module and status are documented in the schema. The description only restates that the ID identifies the target and adds no format, defaulting, or omitted-field behavior 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing form template by ID'), which is clear and actionable. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as update_form_template_item or delete_form_template, which matters given the very large sibling set.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any statement of preconditions beyond the scope requirement. The only usable clause is the auth scope, which is a prerequisite rather than usage guidance.

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