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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and 'It stops collecting signups' adds real behavioral context about the effect. However it does not say whether existing submissions survive, whether the form can be republished, or what happens if the form is already unpublished.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the effect ('stops collecting signups') follows the action immediately. Slightly under-sized rather than verbose, which is not penalized here.

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 single-param tool with annotations and no output schema, little is needed. Still, the reversible-vs-destructive question and the fate of existing submissions are unaddressed and directly affect whether an agent should call this.

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?

A single required parameter with 100% schema coverage, where the schema already documents the form ID format (frm_xxx). The description adds nothing about the identifier, so the baseline 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?

'Take a form offline' is a specific verb+resource that unambiguously distinguishes this from delete-form or update-form. It does not name its inverse sibling publish-form, but the operation itself is clear.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus delete-form, update-form, or its obvious counterpart publish-form. The agent must infer that this is a reversible state toggle rather than a destructive action, which is a key calling decision.

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