Update form settings

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (non-destructive, idempotent, open-world), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: partial-update semantics ('Send only the settings to change; omitted ones stay'), the exact auth requirement and its error (owner_key_required), the not-found behavior for unclaimed forms, secret creation on first webhook set, SSRF-style address refusals, and the paused_by_moderation state. This is unusually rich disclosure for a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loads purpose, routing, auth and partial-update semantics, then breaks each setting into a scannable bullet with an example payload. It is longer than strictly necessary: the closing paragraph on receiver-side signature verification (header format, 5-minute skew, constant-time compare, dedup) describes the consumer's implementation rather than this tool, which is useful context but adds bulk.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still names the returned fields and the masked webhook_secret. Combined with auth requirements, partial-update behavior, per-field semantics, and the error-recovery instruction, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly on the first attempt.

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 100% with per-parameter descriptions and enums, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning beyond the schema: that private/loopback/link-local/cloud-metadata URLs are refused, that setting a URL creates a new signing secret, and the exact milestone thresholds tied to notify_mode. It does not add much on form_id or success_message beyond the schema.

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+resource ('change how a published form behaves without touching its fields') and enumerates exactly which settings are in scope: webhook, notifications, success message, redirect, pause/resume. It explicitly distinguishes itself from publish_form for field changes, so an agent can separate the two without reading 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use routing ('To change fields, publish a new version with publish_form and form_id instead') and points to reveal_webhook_secret as the alternative for retrieving the full secret. It also states the prerequisite credential type (account key fh_live_...) and the failure mode for agent keys and unclaimed forms, which is exactly the guidance an agent needs before calling.

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