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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=true. The description adds valuable context: activating a form deactivates any other, and it applies to a 'live event'. This explains the side effect beyond what annotations provide, though it could mention reversibility or permission scopes more explicitly.

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?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and effect, then lists required parameters and a critical prerequisite (host status). Every sentence adds value.

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 simple toggle tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary behavior (activation/deactivation and side effect), prerequisites (host), and required inputs. It could have mentioned error cases or idempotency implications, but the provided context is sufficient for a basic understanding.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions the three parameters (event_id, form_id, active) but provides no additional semantics beyond restating their necessity. It does not clarify data formats, allowed values, or relationships between parameters, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema.

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 clearly states the verb (activate/deactivate), resource (form on a live event), and the key effect (deactivates any other). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_forms, update_form, or create_form, as it sets the active form for a live event.

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?

The description indicates that the tool requires host privileges ('you must be a host'), which provides a usage constraint. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_form or create_form, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidelines.

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