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

The description claims the operation is "Reversible," which directly conflicts with the destructiveHint=true annotation. Destructive caveats are exactly what an agent relies on for a live-form mutation (turning a form off, retitling a submit button), so asserting reversibility without qualification risks the agent proceeding on a false safety premise.

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 compact sentences: the first front-loads the full range of editable fields, and the second carries the behavioral note and API mapping. No filler, nothing out of order.

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?

All 8 parameters are covered by a 100% schema, no output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description enumerates every meaningful operation. The only gap is that the reversibility claim is unqualified and there is no note on permissions or failure modes.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds light semantic framing for some fields (folder = move location, disabled_message = shown while inactive, submit_button_title = live form text), but does not go beyond what the schema already documents, so no uplift is warranted.

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 names a specific verb (update/rename/move/change/activate) and resource (form settings), and enumerates the exact editable fields so it is unmistakably distinct from siblings like formstack_get_form or formstack_list_forms. An agent can identify the tool's scope without opening 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?

Usage is implied by the field list (use it to change form settings), and the sibling set makes the read-vs-write split inferable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not guidance, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing the form to exist or requiring ownership permissions.

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