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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint/readOnlyHint; the description goes well beyond by disclosing the cascade to versions and submissions, irreversibility, the agent-vs-account key auth model, and four distinct failure modes (owner_key_required, paused_by_moderation, under_review). It also warns about the 24-hour unclaimed-form quota accounting after deletion.

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?

Front-loads the core destructive action and its irreversible scope in the first sentence, then layers preconditions and error cases. Information-dense with little waste, though the long run-on conditionals make it slightly heavy to parse.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the description covers the remaining burden: destructiveness, auth requirements, error responses, and post-deletion quota side effects. Nothing an agent needs to call this safely is missing.

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%, so both form_id and confirm are already fully documented in the schema, including the OAuth-only nature of confirm. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource (deletes a form) plus the exact cascade scope (its versions and its submissions) and irreversibility. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from update_form_settings by naming that sibling's pausing alternative in the same breath.

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 names the alternative (update_form_settings with status "paused") and the condition that selects it (stopping new submissions while keeping the form and responses). It further states when the tool is permitted: agent keys only for unclaimed forms they created, account keys only with the owner role.

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