Update a routing form

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

The description goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by specifying exactly what gets destroyed: supplying qualifiers, fields, or funnelSteps replaces entire collections, and omitted items are deleted. It also clarifies partial update behavior when those collections are omitted, which is critical for an agent to avoid accidental data loss. This is strong behavioral disclosure directly tied to the tool's risk profile.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the operation, and the second delivers the critical behavioral warning without redundancy. It is front-loaded and every word 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 destructive mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers the most important operational risk—accidental deletion of collection items—and the partial-update semantics. The schema already documents skipForm fully, and the output schema covers return values. It could be slightly more complete by addressing structureType or offering explicit guidance on when to use this versus create_routing_form, but overall the key context is present.

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?

With only 11% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does for the most dangerous parameters: qualifiers, fields, and funnelSteps are explained as full-replacement collections. It also clarifies that name, slug, and showProgressBar are updated individually. However, it does not add meaning for other parameters like structureType or skipForm, and the opaque array item schemas remain undefined, leaving a significant gap.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Update a routing form.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like create_routing_form, delete_routing_form, and get_routing_form. The description also adds meaningful scope by explaining collection replacement behavior, so the agent knows exactly what operation is being performed.

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 this tool is for modifying an existing routing form, and the update semantics are clear from the verb. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like create_routing_form, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. The usage guidance is therefore implied rather than explicit.

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