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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds the specific detail that PDFs are also removed, and uses 'permanently' to signal irreversibility. This enriches the annotation-provided profile without contradicting it. It could mention side effects like cascading deletions, but the added PDF detail is valuable.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core action without any filler. It is appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter and clear purpose.

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?

The description covers the essential action and scope (form plus PDFs). Given the existence of an output schema and annotations that cover destructive and idempotent behavior, the description is largely complete. It doesn't mention prerequisites like the form existing, but that is minor for a delete operation. The only slight gap is not detailing the return value, but the output schema covers that.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the form_id parameter. It does not explain the parameter beyond the schema's title 'Form Id'. The tool name and context make it somewhat obvious, but the description adds no explicit guidance on what form_id refers to, its format, or any required validation. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 action ('removes'), a specific resource ('a form and its PDFs'), and a scope ('from the user's library'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_pages (which deletes only pages) and create_form (which creates forms).

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 implies usage: use this when you want to delete an entire form. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., delete_pages for partial deletion) or provide any when-not-to-use guidance. The purpose is clear but the usage context is only implied, not stated.

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