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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true), the description discloses the concrete effects: moving to the spam folder and returning the id plus new spam flag. It also states reversibility, adding behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentences: the first states the action and return value, the second adds reversibility. Every clause earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 two-parameter mutation with 100% schema coverage, a well-defined return value, and annotations covering idempotency and safety, the description provides all essential information. No output schema exists, but the description explicitly mentions the response contents, so the agent can anticipate the outcome.

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 100%, and both form_id and submission_id are already well documented with examples and origins ('from list_forms', 'from list_submissions'). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('Moves') and a clear resource ('a submission to the spam folder'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling restore_submission by naming it as the reversal counterpart, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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?

It provides clear context: this tool is for moving submissions into the spam folder, and it explicitly names restore_submission as the way to reverse the action. It does not explicitly contrast with delete_submission or state when spam is preferred over deletion, but the reversal note gives practical usage guidance.

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