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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=true, yet the description adds substantial context beyond them: null clears a key, unknown keys are rejected, code-managed forms refuse specific keys, and the two-scope permission requirement for presentation keys. This is exactly the kind of behavioral detail annotations cannot 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?

Dense and front-loaded: action first, then accepted keys, then clearing rule, then the two constraint clauses. The key enumeration is long but functional rather than filler; nothing reads as padding.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers clearing, rejection, code-managed forms, and scopes. It stops short of pointing to fillo_get_settings for reading current values or noting validation error behavior, but is otherwise complete for a mutation tool.

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 coverage is 100% at the top level, but the 15 nested setting keys are untyped/undescribed in the schema. The description supplies the accepted key list, the null-to-clear convention, and semantic grouping (schema-level vs presentation keys), adding real meaning. Minor concern: it lists keys (notifyEmailAnswerFields, notifyEmailReplyToField, notifyEmailIncludeAnswers) absent from the schema, which has additionalProperties:false and would reject them.

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 ('Patch a form's settings') and enumerates exactly what is patchable. This clearly separates it from sibling setters like fillo_set_branding, fillo_set_origins, or fillo_set_code_sync_policy without needing to open 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?

Gives real routing conditions: code-managed forms reject schema-level keys and the agent should 'push the schema instead' (implying fillo_push_form), and presentation keys require extra scopes. No explicit when-not beyond that and no sibling names, but context is clear.

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