Delete Form

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

The description reinforces the destructive nature beyond annotations by stating 'cannot be undone' and 'permanently removes'. However, annotations already convey destructiveHint=true. The description adds verbal emphasis but lacks details on authorization or side effects.

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 front-loaded with the purpose but contains redundancy (e.g., repeated 'cannot be undone') and includes extra API details. It could be more concise while maintaining clarity.

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 delete operation, the description covers the action, irreversibility, and required parameters. It lacks information about the return value or error handling, but given the simple nature and annotations providing idempotentHint, it is largely complete.

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 full parameter descriptions. The description reiterates required parameters without adding new semantic information. Therefore, it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 explicitly states 'Delete the specified Form' and emphasizes permanent deletion. It clearly distinguishes this tool from other sibling delete tools by specifying the resource type (Form) and the irreversible nature.

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 instructs to use the tool for deleting Forms but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. While the context of siblings implies it is for Forms, there is no direct guidance on exclusions or comparison with other delete methods.

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