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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=true, yet the description adds the genuinely non-obvious consequences: forms and their submissions/settings relocate to the default workspace and "there is no undo that puts them back." It also states the protected default workspace and what the response reports, which annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then consequence, then the guardrail, then the return value — four short sentences, each carrying a distinct decision-relevant fact. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 destructive two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the side effects, the irreversibility, the precondition, the confirmation protocol, and the return shape ("how many forms moved and the default workspace's id"). Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description goes beyond it by framing confirm as an ordered safety gate used after user approval and by pointing at bootform_list_workspaces as the source of ids. It doesn't restate types, but that's the schema's job.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Deletes a workspace") and immediately distinguishes the outcome from the sibling delete_form by stating forms are not deleted but moved. An agent can tell this apart from bootform_delete_form and bootform_delete_submissions without opening any schema.

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 when-not condition ("The default workspace can't be deleted") and a required pre-call workflow ("Tell the person which forms will move and ask first; then call with confirm: true"). Nothing about when to invoke or what to do beforehand is left to inference.

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