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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation: it specifies soft deletion, revocation of active share links, that restoring does not re-enable revoked links, and that new links must be minted with formShareLink_create. This is rich operational disclosure for a destructive tool.

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 compact and front-loaded: the primary action and soft-delete nature appear first, followed by important side effects and the restore path. Every clause carries useful information.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and the simple one-parameter input, the description covers the critical behavioral outcomes an agent needs: soft deletion, link revocation irreversibility, and restore/link alternatives. It is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 unexplained formId parameter, but it does not describe the expected format, source, or constraints of formId. It only implies that a form is targeted, which the parameter name already conveys.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Move a form to trash (soft delete).' It clearly distinguishes this soft-delete operation from permanent deletion and from sibling tools like form_restore and formShareLink_create.

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 when to use this tool by stating the action and consequences, and it names related alternatives: form_restore for restoration and formShareLink_create for new links. However, it lacks an explicit when-not/alternative comparison against tools such as form_unpublish.

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