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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with them: it "opens nothing by itself" and only returns instructions. It adds meaningful context beyond the annotations by explaining the return shape (screens, buttons, fields) and the follow-up tool family. The claim that Formstack publishes no MCP server for the V2025 API adds justification for the UI-driven approach rather than invocation-relevant behavior.

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?

The operative content is front-loaded in the first two clauses, but the final sentence about Formstack's REST API, the August 2025 V2025 release, add-on status, and a dated check ("checked 22 Oct 2026") does not help an agent decide or invoke. The phrase "from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent" is filler. Roughly half the text does not earn its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only guidance tool with no output schema, the description covers what comes back (step-by-step screens/buttons/fields) and how to proceed afterward. It leaves gaps an agent would want: nothing about how the instructions are scoped (which form, which submission) when no arguments are accepted, and no fallback if the described UI has changed.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty with additionalProperties=false, so there is no parameter meaning to explain. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly implies the call needs no arguments.

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 verb and resource ("Edit submission in the user's own Formstack account") and clarifies the actual behavior: it "Returns how to do it in Formstack step by step... and opens nothing by itself." That clarification is essential because the name formstack_edit_submission implies a direct mutation, so the agent can tell what it really produces. It does not explicitly contrast with formstack_read_submissions or cotlet_app_guide, though it does name the cotlet_browser_* family it hands off to.

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?

The description gives a clear execution path: call this first for step-by-step UI instructions, then perform the edit with cotlet_browser_* tools. It implicitly excludes any direct API-side edit by saying Formstack publishes no MCP server for the V2025 API. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative for agents that want read-only submission data (e.g., formstack_read_submissions).

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