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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: cascade deletion of versions and submissions, irreversibility, key-type authorization rules (agent key limited to unclaimed forms it created, account key needs owner role), specific error codes (owner_key_required, paused_by_moderation, under_review), and the 24-hour quota side effect on the 3-unclaimed-forms limit.

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?

Six sentences, each carrying distinct operational information with no filler, and the highest-value routing guidance is front-loaded before the mechanics. The density is warranted by the destructive, multi-tenant nature of the operation.

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 need no explanation. For a destructive, side-effect-heavy operation the description covers routing, cascade scope, auth requirements, failure responses, and quota impact — nothing an agent needs before invoking it 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 parameters (confirm, form_id) are already documented in the schema, including the OAuth-vs-API-key condition for confirm. The description adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail about the parameters themselves, so the baseline of 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 and resource (deletes a form, its versions and its submissions) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling update_form_settings, which is named as the non-destructive alternative. An agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit use condition ('only when the user asks to remove a form for good, or to clean up a test form') and an explicit when-not condition ('to stop new submissions but keep the form and its responses, call update_form_settings with status paused instead'). Alternative tool and the condition selecting it are both spelled out.

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