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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies mutation but does not disclose partial-update semantics, whether changes are reversible, permission requirements, or how mode switching (enforce vs watch) affects live traffic.

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. It is tight, though given 15 parameters it borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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?

A 15-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema needs more: partial-update behavior, auth via api_key vs header, and the effect of threshold changes are all unaddressed. The description covers the 'what' but not enough for correct invocation.

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 93%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter, including the mode enum's watch semantics and threshold defaults. The description merely names setting categories and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('a form's settings') and enumerates the setting categories touched (context, destinations, thresholds, watch mode, allow/block lists). This is clearly distinguishable from the create_form sibling, though it never names it explicitly.

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 guidance on when to use this versus doorman_create_form, nor any prerequisite (e.g., the form must already exist). Critically, for an update tool it never says whether omitted fields are left unchanged or reset, which is the single most important usage question.

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