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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful scope: destruction is limited to the staged draft, the live version is untouched, and respondents are unaffected — clarifying the blast radius of a destructive call.

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, action front-loaded, and the reassurance clause earns its place by delimiting the destructive scope. No filler.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema handling return values, the description is nearly complete for a single-parameter mutation. The only gap is the absence of explicit routing guidance versus sibling tools like fillo_unpublish_form.

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% and the single 'form' parameter already documents its accepted forms (id, slug, or push handle). The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Drop') and resource ('a published form's staged draft') with the key scoping constraint that the live version stays intact. An agent can distinguish this from fillo_delete_form or fillo_unpublish_form by the 'keep the live version exactly as it is' clause, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the phrase 'keep the live version exactly as it is' signals this is the throw-away-the-draft path rather than publish. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. fillo_publish_form, fillo_unpublish_form), leaving the agent to infer routing.

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