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

Annotations already signal this is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: responses are not lost and remain privately accessible until expiry. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the side effects of closing the form.

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 short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the retention/accessibility consequence is stated economically. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema, the description conveys the core action and an important side effect. However, it leaves parameter semantics entirely unexplained and does not clarify what 'expiry' refers to, so the definition is adequate but not fully complete.

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 0%, and the description does not explain what 'id' or 'token' mean or how they should be supplied. Since the schema provides no property descriptions, the tool description carries the full burden, and it does not compensate.

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 ('Stop accepting responses') and identifies the resource (a form's responses), and the retained-accessibility clause distinguishes it from delete_form. The name collect_close_form reinforces the resource, so an agent can confidently separate it from siblings like collect_delete_form or collect_read_responses.

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 description implies when to use the tool (when no more responses should be accepted) but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. The agent is left to infer the decision boundary between closing a form and deleting it.

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