delete_form

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds critical context by specifying the full scope of destruction (all questions, options, shares, submissions), which is not in the annotations. This warns the agent of the broad impact beyond just deleting a single entity. It doesn't mention irreversibility, but that is implied by destructiveHint.

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?

The description is extremely concise: one sentence for the main action, followed by a simple Args/Returns format. All information is front-loaded, with no filler or redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter delete tool, the description covers the destructive scope, the parameter, and the return value. The annotations provide the safety profile. The only missing context is a note on irreversibility or permission requirements, but those are likely implied by the destructive annotation. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to call 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameter. However, it merely restates the schema type ('Numeric form id') without adding semantics like what the ID refers to or any validation. The description adds no meaningful guidance beyond what the integer type already conveys. It could clarify that form_id is the unique identifier of the form to delete, but it does not.

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?

The description uses a clear verb ('Delete') and resource ('form'), and explicitly lists the cascading scope (questions, options, shares, submissions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_question or delete_option, leaving no ambiguity about what is removed.

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 purpose is self-evident, but the description does not mention when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it. It implicitly assumes the agent knows to use it for deleting a form, but lacks explicit exclusion or alternative guidance. The cascade warning partially serves as a caution, but not as usage direction.

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