Modify a form response option

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint and non-readonly. The description adds that it requires operator write opt-in and confirm:true, and may notify recipients or change tenant data, providing useful side-effect context beyond the flags. No contradiction with 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?

The description is front-loaded with a clear purpose, then lists the endpoint, body fields, reference, and requirements. It's efficient and relevant, though the field list and URL add length; all content 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?

Given the complexity (mutation with nested body, confirm requirement, side effects), the description covers key aspects: endpoint, body fields, reference, and safety requirements. It doesn't explain return format (no output schema) or how to obtain formId, but these are inferable from schema and context.

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?

The schema provides descriptions for body, query, and confirm, but not for path. The description enriches the body parameter by listing expected fields (id, number, text, etc.), helping construct the payload. It also reiterates the confirm requirement, adding value 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 action (modify) and the resource (form response option), and includes the exact HTTP endpoint for precision. It is specific enough to distinguish from other modify tools, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like create_form_response_options or modify_a_plan_form.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to create vs modify, or how it differs from other modify tools. It only mentions requirements (confirm:true) but no use-case or exclusion criteria.

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