Publish or unpublish a form

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

Annotations already indicate destructive, idempotent, non-read-only behavior, but the description adds valuable context beyond that: the default mirroring of is_accepting_responses, the ability to keep a form visible but closed, and the failure mode for legacy forms. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds unique information (default behavior, use case, legacy limitation). No wasted words.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: default parameter behavior, a common use case, and an edge case failure. Combined with rich annotations, the agent has enough to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining that is_accepting_responses defaults to is_published, and by showing how the two boolean parameters interact. This enriches the schema without redundancy.

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 starts with a specific verb phrase 'Publishes or unpublishes the form and opens/closes response collection,' clearly identifying the resource (form) and the actions. It distinguishes itself from siblings like update_form_settings by focusing specifically on publication state and response acceptance.

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?

Provides clear usage guidance: explains the default relationship between is_published and is_accepting_responses, gives a specific use case (published form but closed), and explicitly states a when-not: fails on legacy forms and should be managed in the Forms UI instead. This effectively communicates when to use the tool and when to avoid it.

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