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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds material context: completing a form can trigger the template's completion workflows and webhooks, and re-opening returns it to draft for editing. This is a meaningful side-effect disclosure beyond the structured hints; only permissions and error behavior are left unstated.

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 sentences with zero waste. The write nature and the two actions are front-loaded, and the endpoint is appended efficiently.

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 two-parameter mutation with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and its key side effects. It does not mention what a successful response contains or any permission requirements, but those are minor given the annotation coverage.

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 100%, so both form_id and status are already documented, including the enum meanings. The description reinforces the purpose of each status but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb (mark complete or re-open) and resource (a form), plus the exact endpoint. It distinguishes lifecycle status change from generic edits by explaining that re-opening makes the form editable, though it never names the sibling edit tool explicitly.

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 two enum values: use it to finish a form or to re-open a completed form so it can be edited. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or route the agent to goformz_update_form for editing fields, leaving alternatives to inference.

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