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

The description clearly states this is a destructive/state-changing operation ('delete', 'move to trash', 'auto-purged'), but the annotations declare readOnlyHint: true. This is a direct annotation contradiction, so the behavioral transparency score must be 1.

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 dense sentences front-load the action, then explain recovery and permissions. No filler, and each sentence adds operational value.

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?

Covers the action, recovery window, restore alternative, and permission model, which is complete for a soft-delete tool. The contradictory readOnlyHint makes full coherence slightly less complete, but the textual description itself is thorough.

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?

The schema fully documents the only parameter formId as a UUID, so the description adds little about parameters. The described team/owner context is about authorization rather than the parameter's meaning.

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 states a specific action ('Move a form into the trash / soft delete') on a specific resource (form) within a context ('current team'). It lucidly distinguishes this soft-delete operation from a hard delete and names the recovery path via restore_form, making the tool's purpose unmistakable against siblings like delete_form_translation.

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?

It gives clear invocation context: soft-delete rather than permanent removal, recoverable within 5 days before auto-purge, and explicitly points to restore_form as the undo path. It also states the authorization boundary (form owner or team owner/admin). It does not mention when to prefer duplicate/delete_form_translation, but that is not necessary for this tool's core use.

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