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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: it never says whether this is a partial or full replacement, what happens to `definition` or `settings` keys not supplied, or whether publishing state is affected — the most consequential unknowns for a form mutation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness comes at the cost of the behavioral detail noted above rather than because nothing more was needed.

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?

This is a mutation tool with five parameters, two nested free-form objects (`settings`, `definition`), and no output schema, so the description carries real weight. It omits partial-update semantics, validation or permission requirements, and any indication of what a successful response contains — significant gaps for nested-object writes.

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 description coverage is 60%: `id`, `settings`, and `definition` are documented in the schema, while `name` and `type` are bare (the enum values are self-explanatory). The description's field list mirrors the schema properties and adds no semantics such as the frm_xxx ID format or how `definition` merging works, so it lands at the baseline.

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 gives a specific verb ('Update') plus resource ('a form') and enumerates the mutable surface (name, type, definition, settings). An agent can distinguish it from get-form, delete-form, and the state-changing publish-form/unpublish-form siblings without reading the 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus update-template, publish-form, unpublish-form, or reset-form-token, and no mention of prerequisites or the fact that only the fields supplied are changed. The agent must infer all routing and preconditions.

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