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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description goes well beyond that by naming exactly what is destroyed (the form and all collected responses) and stating irrevocability via 'Permanently'. It also discloses the human-confirmation requirement and asks the agent to report response counts, 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?

Two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the destructive consequence and the routing rule, followed by the operational constraint. No sentence is 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 destructive two-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers consequence, alternative, and the confirm gate. Return values need not be explained because the output schema carries them.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema by requiring confirm: true only after an explicit human confirmation and by prescribing how to obtain it, which is behavioral guidance the parameter's own description states only tersely.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete a form') plus the scope of destruction ('every response it has collected'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the nearby sibling set_form_status, so an agent can route correctly without opening either 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 (stopping collection but keeping answers) and names the alternative tool, set_form_status with "closed". It also prescribes the confirmation protocol, including refusing to act on vague instructions.

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