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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: changes go live immediately on published pages (no draft), omitted top-level keys are preserved while sent keys are replaced whole, expectedUpdatedAt gates the write via optimistic concurrency, and validation refuses introduced problems while returning warnings and removed fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then behavior, replacement semantics, concurrency, and validation in a logical order. Every sentence conveys a distinct, non-redundant rule; no filler despite the length.

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 complex mutation with deep nested schema and no output schema, the description covers the destructive/live consequences, merge semantics, concurrency requirement, and validation outcomes. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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, but the description adds real meaning: it explains that each top-level formSchema key replaces the stored one wholesale against the schema's terser 'The top-level keys to replace; keys left out are kept', and clarifies the origin and enforcement of expectedUpdatedAt. The name parameter is only implied by 'name or schema'.

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 ('Change a form's name or schema') and immediately establishes the tool's distinctive semantics (top-level key replacement, optimistic concurrency). An agent can distinguish it from create_form and update_collection_schema without opening the 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?

Clearly frames the update-existing-form use case and tells the agent to source expectedUpdatedAt from get_form, plus the constraint to send complete values for the keys being changed. It references create_form's validation for comparison but does not explicitly enumerate when-not to use this tool versus creating or listing forms.

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