Archive or Reactivate a KoboToolbox Form

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

Beyond the annotations (which already indicate not read-only, not destructive, and idempotent), the description adds useful behavioral context: responses are kept, remain exportable, and archived forms can be reactivated. It also states the return value as deployment status. 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 well-structured and efficient: it front-loads the core action and safety property, gives a clear usage directive with the alternative, then lists parameters and return value. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary detail.

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 full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the effect, the alternative, the parameters, and the return value. The safety profile is also covered by annotations, so nothing essential 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 description coverage is 100%, and the description's Args section largely repeats the schema's parameter documentation. The active parameter's meaning is fully covered in the schema, so the description adds no significant new semantic value beyond what is already structured.

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 ('archive or reactivate') and resource ('KoboToolBox form'), and clearly states what the tool does: stops new submissions without deleting data or brings an archived form back. It also explicitly differentiates from kobo_delete_form, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 gives direct when-to-use guidance: it is 'the correct way to end a data collection round' and should be used 'instead of kobo_delete_form, which destroys the data.' This explicitly names the alternative and the reason for preferring this tool.

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