Set Forms integration-group conditions operator

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful structural fact that the operator joins condition groups (a relationship-level mutation), but says nothing about permissions, side effects on existing conditions, or error behavior.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the mutation target without filler. Efficient, though it could carry one more clause of routing guidance without bloating.

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 low-complexity, three-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies enough structural context. The main omission is the absence of any routing note relative to its near-identical sibling tools.

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%, so hook_id, survey_id and operator are all documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description reinforces what 'operator' means but adds no syntax or value guidance beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (set) and a precise resource (the boolean operator between an integration group's condition groups), which distinguishes it from the broader sibling forms_conditions_hook_update. It does not explicitly name that sibling as the alternative, but the scope is narrow and 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tools (forms_conditions_hook_update, forms_conditions_hook_create) that an agent must choose between. Usage is only weakly implied by the verb 'set'.

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