update_form_submission

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses important pre-network behaviors: empty-string fields are rejected to prevent accidental clearing, length caps exist for note and tags, and account_id auto-resolves if omitted. It doesn't specify merge/replace semantics for partially updated fields, though the update_call reference partially compensates.

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 tightly organized with a summary sentence, an args section, and clearly separated validation notes. Every sentence adds operational value, with no filler or redundancy.

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-param mutation with no annotations, the description covers purpose, parameter basics, and critical validation behaviors, while the output schema covers return values. The main gap is reliance on update_call for the exact semantics of shared fields, so it isn't fully standalone.

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 adds non-schema facts: submission_id uses 'FOR...' prefix, account_id auto-resolves, and note/tags have length caps. The remaining five parameters are delegated to update_call, which is helpful but not fully self-contained.

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 and resource: 'Update an existing form submission', and enumerates the mutable fields (notes, tags, value, spam, lead status). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like create_form_submission and update_call by object type and action.

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 first sentence establishes clear context for use: modifying an already-existing form submission. It doesn't explicitly name when-not-to-use or alternatives, but cross-referencing update_call and identifying submission_id/account_id provides adequate contextual steering.

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