Unpublish Forms survey

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent), and the description adds value beyond them by disclosing reversibility and the shape of the API response ('bare 200 OK'). It does not address what happens on a repeat call, which matters given idempotentHint=false, but the added context is genuinely useful.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded, and no filler. The trailing sentence about the 200 OK response is somewhat awkward in phrasing but contributes transparency rather than padding.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, its effect, reversibility, and the response behavior, which is nearly everything an agent needs. A note on repeat-invocation behavior would close the 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% and the single survey_id parameter is fully documented in the schema (including its 24-char hex format and provenance from surveys_list). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies when structured fields carry the load.

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 ('take offline') and resource (a published form), plus the concrete effect on respondents. It also explicitly positions itself against the sibling forms_surveys_publish by naming the inverse operation, so an agent can distinguish the two 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?

The description gives clear context for use (form is currently published, you want respondents to stop filling it) and names the alternative route back ('reversible via publish'). It stops short of stating when-not to use it or any preconditions such as the form needing to be published first, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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