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

Annotations only carry destructiveHint=true, so the description's disclosure that the submission counts toward the form and fires notification emails, webhooks, and integrations adds genuinely valuable behavioral context beyond the structured field. It stops short of stating permission/auth requirements or the return shape, so it is not exhaustive.

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 tight sentences plus the API mapping; the side-effect warning (the most important fact) is front-loaded and nothing is wasted.

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 mutation tool with only a destructiveHint annotation and no output schema, the description covers the critical consequence of calling it. It is largely complete, though a note on required permissions or whether the submission can be undone would close the remaining gap.

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 100% and the nested field-value shapes are fully documented in the schema, so the description rightly does not repeat them. It contributes no additional parameter meaning of its own, which is the expected baseline when the schema already does the work.

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+resource ('Submit an entry to a form') and adds scope ('on someone's behalf'), which cleanly differentiates it from formstack_update_submission, formstack_get_submission, and formstack_list_form_submissions without needing the 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?

The warning that this is a *real* submission with side effects implicitly tells the agent when this tool is appropriate, but it names no alternatives (e.g., when to prefer update_submission or partial submissions) and gives no explicit exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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