update_form_submission

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

With no annotations, the description adds value by disclosing that empty-string fields are rejected to prevent accidental clearing, length caps for note and tags, and that account_id auto-resolves. It references update_call for semantics, but could further detail side effects of mutation.

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 and well-structured: purpose first, then argument list, then important behavioral notes. No unnecessary details, and key constraints are highlighted effectively.

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?

Considering the tool has 7 parameters (1 required) and no annotations, the description covers update functionality, parameter constraints, and behavioral notes. It does not explain return values (output schema exists but not visible) or error handling, but the output schema may cover that. Overall, it provides sufficient context 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 coverage is 0%, but the description provides semantics for all parameters: mentions submission_id prefix, account_id auto-resolution, and lists updatable fields. It adds constraints like length caps and references to update_call, fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 it updates an existing form submission with specific fields (notes, tags, value, spam, lead status). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_form_submission (create vs update) and bulk_update_calls (calls vs 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 usage by naming the fields but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_call. It provides a behavioral note about empty strings and references update_call docstring, but lacks definitive guidance on selection.

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