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

Annotations only declare the generic write profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false). The description goes well beyond them by disclosing idempotency semantics, the warning behavior for forms with content blocks but no questions, and the failure mode with a concrete remedy. These are behavior traits the structured fields do not carry.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, each carrying distinct information (idempotency, warning case, failure case, next step). No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, idempotency, edge cases, failure remediation, and the logical next call. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?

Only one parameter (formId) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never elaborates on it. However, formId is self-evident from its name and required status, so the gap is minor rather than disqualifying; a 3 reflects adequate-but-thin 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Publish a form's current content') and clarifies the resulting state ('make it live'), which cleanly separates it from form_unpublish and form_update among the siblings. An agent can tell what it does without opening the 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?

Explicitly gives the precondition for failure ('Forms with no editor content cannot be published') and the alternative remediation path ('call editor_insertHeader or editor_insertTextQuestion first'), plus the natural follow-up tool (formShareLink_create). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternatives guidance the dimension asks for.

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