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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists editable fields but does not disclose side effects such as whether existing fields are overwritten, whether permissions are required, or what happens to the form after update. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single concise sentence that covers most relevant aspects. It is front-loaded with the primary action ('Edita un formulario') and efficiently lists the editable attributes. However, the comma-separated list is slightly unwieldy but still 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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits the redirect_url parameter, lacks any note about postconditions or return values, and does not clarify how the update interacts with existing form data. This is insufficient for a complex 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?

Despite having 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaningful semantics for 6 of the 8 parameters (e.g., 'lista donde caen las altas' clarifies list_id, 'doble opt-in' clarifies double_optin). However, it omits redirect_url and does not explain parameter types or constraints, leaving some gaps.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Edita' = edits) and resource ('formulario' = form). It enumerates the editable aspects (title, fields, list, double opt-in, thank-you message, activation), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_form or update_flow by focusing on form-specific updates.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for editing an existing form, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or mentions of when create_form or other update tools would be more appropriate.

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