Update form submission (write)

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

Annotations already declare write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds 'WRITE' and lists updatable fields, which is consistent but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error handling, validation rules, or side effects. Minimal extra value beyond annotations.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with 'WRITE', no redundancy. However, it omits some parameters (append_tags) and could benefit from a structured list or table to improve completeness without adding much length. Still efficient.

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?

Given 8 parameters with low schema coverage, no output schema, and no behavioral details beyond annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify append_tags semantics, lead_status options, or return value. For a write operation with many optional parameters, more context is needed for correct invocation.

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 only 25% (account_id and form_submission_id). The description mentions 5 of 8 parameters but misses append_tags, account_id, and form_submission_id (though form_submission_id is obvious). It does not explain the lead_status enum values or behavior of append_tags. With low schema coverage, the description should cover all parameters more completely.

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?

Description clearly states the action (update) and resource (form submission) with specific fields: notes, tags, lead status, value, or spam flag. The verb 'update' and listing of fields makes it unambiguous, and the 'WRITE' prefix reinforces intent. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_form_submission and list_form_submissions.

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 implies when to use the tool (to update form submission fields) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. No prerequisites or conditions are mentioned, and there is no comparison with sibling update tools like update_call or update_company.

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