Modify Forms submit-button show condition

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: this is a complete replacement that overwrites the existing condition group rather than merging, which is important for an agent to know before calling. It does not mention auth requirements, side effects on the form, or return shape.

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 with zero waste; the critical constraint (full replacement) is placed immediately and highlighted. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 3-parameter mutation with annotations present, no output schema, and fully documented nested parameters, the description covers the highest-value gap: that the operation replaces the entire group. Minor omissions remain (prerequisites, effect on the group's operator), but an agent has enough to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents survey_id, condition_id, and the nested body (operator, items, clause fields) in detail. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ("Replace a submit-button condition group"), so an agent immediately knows the operation and target. The full-replacement semantics implicitly distinguish it from set_operator-style siblings, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 "FULL replacement, not a partial update" clause implies when this is the right choice versus an operator-only edit, but there are no explicit when-to-use/when-not statements, prerequisites (e.g., form must be unpublished), or named alternatives among the forms_conditions_submit_* siblings. Usage is only implied.

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