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

Annotations indicate not read-only, not destructive, not open-world. Description adds authorization requirements, free business restriction, and mandatory access check. While it doesn't detail exact side effects, it provides significant behavioral context beyond 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?

The description is a single concise paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then provides usage guidelines. It is efficient but could benefit from structured formatting like bullet points.

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?

Given 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites and restrictions well but lacks details on parameter meanings, update behavior (partial vs full), or return values. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0%, and the description provides no details on the 11 parameters. It only generically mentions 'editable lead form fields.' The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the action (update), resource (lead form fields), and scope (for a community managed by authenticated user). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_lead_form, delete_lead_form, and publish_lead_form.

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?

The description provides explicit preconditions: check business permissions, note that FREE businesses cannot use this tool, call check_business_tool_access before collecting inputs, show grace-period warning and verified resubscribe link, and never proceed when access is blocked. This provides clear guidance on when and how to use the tool.

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