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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false) by disclosing the all-or-nothing failure mode for cross-site ids, the audit side effect that processing stamps a processed timestamp, and the count-of-changed-rows return. These are exactly the mutation semantics an agent cannot infer from the hint flags.

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: action plus status meanings first, then the validation constraint, then the return value. Nothing is repeated from the schema and 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?

With no output schema, the description still reports the return value (rows changed), the failure behavior (nothing changes), and the notable side effect of marking processed. For a 4-parameter mutation tool this is complete enough to call without further guessing.

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 status, site_id, and submission_ids are already documented; the description still adds real meaning by constraining ids to full ids from list_submissions that must belong to this site, and by glossing "processed" as "dealt with". The optional user_goal parameter is left unexplained but the schema covers it.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Move one or more form submissions to an Inbox status") and enumerates the exact target states, including the reversal path back to "new". An agent can immediately tell this apart from list_submissions (source of ids) or delete_submissions (removal rather than state change).

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 clear preconditions: ids must be full ids from list_submissions and must all belong to the given site. It does not, however, explicitly say when to prefer this over delete_submissions or export_submissions, so the exclusion guidance is missing.

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