Deploy KoboToolbox Form

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: deploying makes the form live but NOT public, and the Enketo link requires a Kobo login until sharing is enabled. This clarifies side effects and access behavior without contradicting the 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 compact and well-structured with clear sections for behavior, arguments, return value, and a relevant caveat. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and every sentence adds useful information without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

With one simple parameter, no output schema, and annotations already covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It explains the return value (deployment status and collect links) and the important privacy/auth caveat. It could add slightly more detail on what deployment statuses look like, but nothing critical is missing for selecting and invoking 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?

There is only one parameter, uid, and the input schema already describes it as the asset uid of the form to deploy. The description repeats this in the Args section but adds no new semantic detail, so with 100% schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: deploy a draft form or redeploy a changed one so it becomes active and can collect submissions. It names the specific resource type (KoboToolbox form) and the action (deploy), which distinguishes it from siblings like kobo_update_form, kobo_archive_form, and kobo_get_form.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when a draft or changed form needs to be made active. It also gives a practical exclusion note, directing users to kobo_set_sharing when anonymous submissions are needed. However, it does not explicitly describe when not to deploy or contrast with all alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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