erase_form_submissions

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

Despite annotations already flagging destructiveHint=true, the description adds substantial context: irreversibility, the required submission.manage permission, the return shape {deleted: <count>}, the audit-log behavior (records the erasure, never the address), and the caveat that backup copies persist until rotation. This is rich behavioral disclosure an agent can act on.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the safety-critical facts (irreversibility, permission, return shape, retention). No filler; each clause carries operational weight.

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 no output schema, the description supplies the return shape, plus permission requirements and backup-retention caveats that matter for a destructive bulk operation. An agent has everything needed to invoke this 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 both parameters are already documented, and the description largely restates the email matching rule ('case-insensitively across all answers'). It adds no new syntax or format detail and does not address the site parameter, 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?

Uses a specific verb (erase/delete) on a specific resource (form submissions) and defines scope precisely: EVERY submission in the active site whose answers contain the email, in any field. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling delete_form_submission, which targets a single submission.

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 framing 'Data-subject erasure' makes the intended scenario clear, and the email-match semantics imply when this bulk tool is appropriate versus a single-deletion sibling. It stops short of explicitly naming delete_form_submission as the alternative for single-record cases, so no true when-not guidance is given.

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