Delete Forms integration

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds the useful scope fact that sibling integrations on the hook survive, but says nothing about irreversibility, side effects on collected answers, or auth requirements.

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 filler; the destructive scope (one integration) comes first and the non-destructive consequence second.

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-param, fully documented delete with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers the essential question (what exactly gets removed). It stops short of noting permanence or recovery options, which would be the only remaining gap.

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% — all three params (survey_id, hook_id, subscription_id) are documented with provenance (hooks_list, subscriptions_list, surveys_list). The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond that, 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 (Delete) and a precisely scoped resource (one integration/subscription on a hook), and the clause 'the hook's other integrations stay' distinguishes it from the sibling forms_hooks_delete, which removes the whole hook. An agent can tell the blast radius apart without opening either schema.

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 only implied: the scoping clause signals this is the targeted-removal tool rather than hook deletion, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. needing the subscription id from forms_subscriptions_list), and no named alternative.

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