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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds substantive side-effect detail the annotations cannot express: closing 'stops new responses and swaps the public page for a closed notice', nothing is deleted, and the change is reversible. It stops short of noting what existing responses do when reopened or any auth requirements.

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?

Three tight sentences, each carrying distinct load: the core action, the behavioral consequence of closing, and the sibling-routing rule. No filler and the primary purpose is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Between the action semantics, the reversibility guarantee, and the explicit contrast with delete_form, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 50% — form_id is documented there, but the status enum has no schema description. The description compensates by naming the three states in plain language ('open', 'close', 'back into draft'), which maps cleanly onto the draft/open/closed enum, though it does not spell out the literal enum tokens.

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 (set/open/close) on a specific resource (form) with all three target states enumerated ('open or close a form, or put it back into draft'). It also actively differentiates itself from the closest sibling, delete_form, so an agent can route 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?

Explicitly names the alternative tool and the trigger condition: 'Use this rather than delete_form when someone says a form is "done", "finished" or "no longer needed"'. It even quotes the user vocabulary that should map to this tool, which is unusually actionable routing guidance.

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