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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: the exact precondition (unassigned + zero submissions), the 409 refusal error, the instruction to relay the reason to the owner, and the explicit 'never retry' warning. This significantly helps an agent handle failure correctly.

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 a single dense sentence that conveys the precondition, failure mode, user communication instruction, and retry prohibition. Every clause earns its place, and the most critical constraint is front-loaded with 'ONLY'.

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 operation with annotations already indicating destructiveness and no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent when deletion is allowed, what happens when it isn't, and how to respond. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage of the single parameter, formId, including its meaning and source (from list_forms). The tool description does not add parameter-specific syntax or formatting details, but none are needed because the schema is complete. Baseline 3 is 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 clearly communicates the tool's purpose: deleting a form, but only in a specific state (unassigned and zero submissions). The precondition and refusal behavior make the action clear even though the verb 'delete' is implied rather than stated directly. It is distinct from sibling tools like delete_booking_page or delete_media because it specifically addresses form deletion constraints.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: only call this for unassigned forms with zero submissions. It also explains that attached or content-holding forms are refused with 409, and instructs the agent to relay the reason and never retry, which is strong operational guidance. It does not name alternative tools, but for a delete operation the condition itself is the key routing signal.

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