Modify Forms integration group

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, lowering the bar. The description adds genuinely useful PATCH context — unset fields are left unchanged — which is not derivable from the hint flags alone.

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?

One tight sentence that front-loads the operations and ends with the key behavioral constraint. Nothing wasted.

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 3 fully documented parameters, a rich nested body schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, no output schema is needed. The description is sufficient for an agent to invoke this mutation 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%, including names for survey_id, hook_id and body fields, so the schema carries the semantics; baseline is 3. The description's 'only the fields set change' adds a small amount of meaning but largely restates the body schema's own 'Fields to change; unset ones stay.'

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 specific verbs (rename, switch on/off) and the resource (integration group), so the agent knows it is the mutation counterpart to forms_hooks_create/delete/get. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the operation is 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?

Usage is implied by the patch semantics ("only the fields set change"), which tells the agent this is a partial update rather than a full replace. However, it never states when to prefer this over forms_hooks_create/delete or any prerequisite (e.g., hook_id must come from hooks_list).

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