Update form settings

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by explaining the email collection modes (VERIFIED requires signing in, etc.) and noting that only provided fields are touched. This is consistent with idempotentHint and does not contradict readOnlyHint or destructiveHint. It could expand on potential destructive effects (e.g., turning off quiz mode), but the added context is valuable.

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 purpose, then provides enum details and a usage constraint. Every sentence contributes information; there is no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 3-parameter update tool with no output schema and annotations present, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and the key constraint. It is missing an explicit warning about potential destructive consequences (destructiveHint=true), such as what happens when toggling quiz mode off, but overall the description is sufficient for an agent to use 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 schema already describes all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds significant meaning to the email_collection_type enum values (VERIFIED, RESPONDER_INPUT) and clarifies the optionality of is_quiz and email_collection_type ('At least one field is required'), which is not stated in the schema. This elevates the score.

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 ('Toggles') and specific resources ('quiz mode' and 'email collection mode'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like update_form_info or set_publish_settings by focusing on these two settings.

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 provides useful usage guidance: 'At least one field is required; only the provided fields are touched.' This clarifies when to use the tool (updating specific settings) and sets expectations. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for different settings, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to choose appropriately.

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