update_form_submission

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses important behaviors: empty-string fields are rejected to prevent accidental clearing, length caps for note (4000 chars) and tags (100 entries), and account_id auto-resolution. It does not cover reversibility or permissions but provides substantial context 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?

The description is concise with no wasted words. It front-loads the main purpose and then uses paragraphs for details. Every sentence adds value: constraints, warnings, and cross-reference to update_call. Well-structured.

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 7-parameter tool with output schema, the description covers key constraints and behavioral notes. However, it lacks specifics like whether tags replace or append, allowed values for lead_status, and error handling. It is adequate but has notable gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains submission_id format (prefix 'FOR...'), account_id auto-resolution, length caps, and empty-string rejection. It refers to update_call for field semantics. While not all parameters are fully detailed (e.g., lead_status values), it adds significant meaning 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?

The description clearly states the tool updates an existing form submission and lists specific fields (notes, tags, value, spam, lead status). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_form_submission (create vs update) and update_call (different resource).

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to update a form submission) and mentions auto-resolution of account_id. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct alternatives, though the sibling list makes the distinction implicit.

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