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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that the form is kept in history, that cancellation is limited to drafts, and that submitted forms are rejected. It does not mention permission requirements or idempotency, but the core mutation behavior and precondition are clearly stated.

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 tight sentences with no waste. The primary action and its scope are front-loaded, followed by the key restriction and alternative.

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?

The tool is simple: one required parameter and an output schema that covers return values. The description supplies the essential operating context — draft-only scope, history retention, and the alternative for submitted forms. It could say more about permissions or exact parameter meaning, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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%, so the single form_id parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description implies form_id identifies the draft form but does not define its format or behavior beyond that. For one obvious UUID parameter, this is minimally adequate but not enriched.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Cancel a draft form.' It also distinguishes the action from the sibling forms_submit by stating that submitted forms cannot be cancelled, making the tool's purpose immediately clear.

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?

It explicitly defines when the tool applies (draft forms only) and when it does not (submitted forms), and names the alternative workflow: use forms.start with copy_from_form_id. This gives the agent a complete routing rule.

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