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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It usefully discloses partial-update semantics ('any subset', implying untouched fields are preserved) and a plan-gating constraint ('autoResponder (Pro)'), but says nothing about required permissions, whether changes take effect immediately, reversibility, or what a successful response contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the field enumeration is dense but appropriate for an 11-parameter partial-update tool.

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 an 11-parameter, nested-object mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 45% coverage, the description is thin: it omits the required formId, doesn't clarify nested object shapes (validation, autoResponder), and gives no failure/permission behavior.

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 only 45%, so the description must compensate but instead merely restates the property names already visible in the schema (name, active, allowedDomains, etc.). The nested validation and autoResponder objects and the required formId are given no additional meaning beyond what the schema says.

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 (Change) and resource (a form's settings), and enumerates the mutable fields, so an agent can distinguish it from create_form/get_form/delete_form. It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead in edge cases, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiated.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (formId is required but unmentioned), and no exclusions. The field list implies the update context but provides no routing guidance.

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