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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the immediate operational effect (URL and every embed stop accepting responses), that data is retained, that republishing reverses it, and that outward-facing connections trigger a human approval link. The approval-link detail is auth/routing context the annotations cannot convey.

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 sentences with zero filler; the state change and its immediate consequence are front-loaded, followed by the reversibility and approval caveats.

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 an output schema present, return details need not be repeated. The description covers effect, reversibility, data retention, and the approval-flow requirement, which is everything needed to call this mutation correctly.

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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the accepted form id/slug/handle formats. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Unpublish') and resource ('a live form') and states the concrete effect on the hosted URL and embeds. An agent can differentiate it from fillo_publish_form and fillo_delete_form without opening any 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?

Clearly frames this as a reversible takedown: 'responses are kept and publishing again restores it,' which implicitly positions it against destructive alternatives like delete_form. It stops short of explicitly naming that alternative or stating when-not to use it.

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