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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true, so the description usefully adds that the operation is 'Reversible' and that deactivating shows a message while inactive, which directly contextualizes the destructive hint. It still omits auth/permission requirements and whether omitted fields are preserved or reset on this PUT.

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?

One front-loaded sentence plus a compact endpoint reference; every clause names a distinct capability 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 an eight-parameter mutation flagged destructive, the description covers the changeable fields and reversibility but never states whether this PUT replaces the whole settings object or only patches supplied fields, nor what permissions are required. That ambiguity is material when a live form can be deactivated.

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 all eight parameters are already documented in the schema; the description largely restates them. It does add the useful coupling of is_active with disabled_message, but nothing on format, ranges, or partial-update semantics.

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?

Specific verb (update) plus resource (form) with an explicit enumeration of the mutable settings: name, folder, submit-button text, timezone, language, and active state. It is trivially distinguishable from read siblings like formstack_get_form or formstack_list_forms.

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 enumeration implies usage (use this when you want to change any of those settings), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternative named (e.g., create vs. update). Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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