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

Annotations already declare non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world mutation, and the description adds genuinely new facts: the user-visible effect (page says closed) and per-call pricing with no charge on failure. It stops short of saying whether collected responses are preserved or hidden, which is the one behavior an agent might still need.

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 short sentences with zero filler: effect first, inverse second, cost/failure last. Every sentence carries distinct, actionable information.

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 mutation with annotations and no output schema, the definition covers effect, reversibility, cost, and failure behavior. Only the fate of existing responses is left unstated, a minor but real gap for a form-closing tool.

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?

With a single required parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already explains that it accepts a form_id or slug and points at forms_list. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and effect: "Stop a form taking responses; its page then says it is closed." This is unambiguous and immediately distinguishes it from forms_open, which is named as the inverse operation.

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 explicitly points to forms_open for the reverse operation, giving an agent a clear routing signal between the two. It doesn't spell out when-not-to-use (e.g., preserving a form for archival vs closing), so it falls slightly short of a full 5.

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