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

Annotations flag the call as destructive and idempotent, and the description goes further by explaining partial-update semantics, that null clears a field, that status/workflows are untouched, and the exact remediation path for workflow re-runs. That is the kind of consequence detail an agent needs before a destructive mutation.

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?

Front-loads the mutation marker and primary effect, then layers the exclusion, the alternative workflow, and the endpoint in roughly decreasing priority. Three sentences, none of them filler.

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 destructive, nested-object mutation with no output schema, the description covers effect scope, partial-update behavior, side-effect exclusions, and the correct alternative route. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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 the baseline is 3; the description adds meaning by stating that only supplied fields change (partial-update semantics) rather than replacing the whole field map. The null-clears behavior and GUID keying are already in the schema, so it does not fully double the value.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('WRITE: change a form's name and/or field values') and immediately scopes it as a partial update. It explicitly distinguishes itself from goformz_set_form_status, so an agent can route between the two mutation tools without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('change a form's name and/or field values') and when-not-to-use ('Does NOT change the status and does not trigger workflows'), plus a concrete alternative sequence using goformz_set_form_status for workflow re-runs. No inference required.

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