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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail: the operation is a soft delete to trash, not permanent destruction; it immediately stops response collection; and it can be restored later. It also explicitly warns that user confirmation is required, which aligns with the confirm parameter.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the most important behavioral consequences and the confirmation requirement. Every sentence earns 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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical context: scope ('all its nodes'), effect on responses, recoverability, and confirmation. Combined with fully documented parameters, an agent has enough to call it correctly. Minor gaps like behavior after repeated deletion are not essential.

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%, with the schema already documenting form_id, context, and confirm in detail. The description does not add param-specific meaning beyond reinforcing that confirmation is required, so the baseline score 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?

The description opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Move a form and all its nodes to the trash.' It also explains the immediate consequence ('stops accepting responses') and reversibility ('can be restored later'), making it clearly distinct from sibling tools like clipform_delete_node.

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 provides clear context about when this tool is appropriate by noting it affects the entire form, stops responses immediately, and is restorable. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but the behavior and scope are clear enough to guide selection.

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