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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, the description discloses what actually happens: the form is hidden from list_forms, retained recoverably for 5 days, then auto-purged, and submission records survive until permanent purge. This is exactly the recovery/permission/retention context the annotations cannot express.

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 with the operation and its soft-delete nature front-loaded, followed by recovery path, permission, and retention. No filler and no repetition of the name or title.

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 destructive one-parameter tool with an output schema and destructiveHint already set, the description covers everything an agent needs to decide and act: scope, recoverability window, sibling to use for undo, and authorization level.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents formId as the form UUID. The description adds only the implicit constraint that the form must belong to the current team; it contributes little meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Move a form into the trash') and immediately clarifies the operation is a soft delete scoped to 'the current team'. This distinguishes it from a hard delete and from the translation/question deletion siblings without the agent needing to open 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?

It names the reversal path explicitly ('use restore_form to bring it back') and states the permission condition ('Any member of the team can do this'), which tells the agent when the call will succeed. It stops short of stating when-not to use it (e.g., when a form should be permanently removed), but the contextual guidance present is clear.

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