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

The annotations already indicate destructive behavior, but the description adds substantial context beyond that: soft delete semantics, 5-day recoverable window, auto-purge behavior, and that submission records are preserved until permanent purge. No contradiction with 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?

Three sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by recovery, permissions, and data-retention details. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy.

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 one-parameter soft-delete tool, the description covers the essential context: what happens to the form, how long it remains recoverable, how to restore it, who has permission, and what happens to submissions. The output schema and annotations cover the rest.

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 100% and the single parameter formId is already described as 'The form UUID to move to trash.' The description adds the 'current team' scope but otherwise relies on the schema, which is acceptable at the baseline for full coverage.

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 precise verb and resource: 'Move a form into the trash (soft delete) in the current team.' It clearly differentiates from siblings like restore_form and delete_form_translation by naming the exact operation and scope.

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?

Explicitly says when to use restore_form as the recovery alternative, notes that the form is hidden from list_forms after deletion, and states the permission requirement (form owner or team owner/admin). This gives clear guidance on when and by whom the tool can be used.

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