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

Beyond annotations, it discloses auth requirements, the mapping-preservation behavior of question ids, and the operational consequence of requiring a live form before joining. It does not detail what happens when question ids are omitted, but the idempotentHint and destructiveHint already cover part of the safety profile.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The core action, constraints, and key behavioral notes are front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 write tool with no output schema, it covers required inputs, permissions, and key behavior. Minor gaps like return value and behavior when ids are omitted are not critical because the schema and annotations carry constraints and idempotency.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains community_id, questions, enabled, and name, and clarifies the role of the id field for answer mapping. However, it does not explain semantics for options, required, placeholder, or canonical_key inside question objects, leaving those to schema property names alone.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Replace') and resource ('community's signup form'), and lists the key aspects: questions, enabled state, and optional name. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_community_signup_form and set_form_active.

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?

It provides clear context: a live form is required before joining, and question ids should be passed to preserve answer mappings. It also names required parameters and the creator/admin permission level, though it does not explicitly contrast with update_form or create_form.

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