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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the real behavioral payload: the effect on respondents and, importantly, that the action is reversible via form_publish, which meaningfully tempers the destructive hint and tells the agent rollback exists.

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?

Two short sentences, effect stated first, reversibility second. No filler and nothing buried.

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 single-parameter state-change tool with no output schema, the description covers effect, audience impact and rollback path. It stops short of stating what identifier is needed or whether authorization/ownership is required, but the core decision inputs are present.

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?

One parameter (formId) with 0% schema description coverage and no explanation in the description of what formId is or where it comes from. The parameter is guessable from the name, but the description contributes nothing beyond the schema here.

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?

Specific verb ('Unpublish') plus resource ('a form') plus the observable effect ('respondents can no longer access it'). It also names the inverse sibling form_publish, so an agent can place it precisely in the publish/unpublish pair.

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 the use case (take a form offline) and points at form_publish for the reverse operation, but never states when to choose this over adjacent tools like form_delete or form_restore. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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