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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds concrete consequences: all responses are deleted, the form link stops working, exported files remain, and billing only applies on success. These details materially improve the agent's understanding of the operation's side effects.

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?

The description is short, front-loaded with the destructive action, and every clause adds useful information about permanence, lingering files, or cost. No sentence 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?

For a simple one-parameter delete operation with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description is complete enough to call correctly. It covers the destructive outcome, link behavior, exported-file exception, and cost model without needing an output schema.

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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains that `form` accepts a form_id or slug. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that, making the baseline score 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 and resource — deleting a form — and clarifies that all responses are permanently removed and the link stops working. This distinguishes it from non-destructive form operations and from deleting a single response.

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 permanence language ('for good') and cost note imply this is only for irreversible removal, but the description does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like forms_close or forms_delete_response. Usage is inferable rather than spelled out.

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