Modify a plan form

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

Annotations already flag this as destructive/non-read-only, but the description adds substantial context: operator write opt-in, mandatory confirm:true, and the warning that it may notify recipients or change tenant data. This is exactly the kind of behavioral disclosure agents need for mutation tools.

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?

Five tightly packed sentences deliver action, endpoint, body fields, reference documentation, and safety warnings. There is no filler, and the most important operational constraints are front-loaded.

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?

Covers the endpoint, body shape, required confirm flag, and side effects. It does not describe the response/return value, but no output schema exists and this is a mutation tool where operational requirements matter most. The reference link fills remaining 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?

The schema describes body as a generic complete payload and confirm as explicit approval. The description adds concrete meaning by enumerating common body fields (id, name, description, triggerType, mobileEnabled, uiEnabled, apiEnabled) and showing planId in the URL path. This goes beyond the schema's generic object definition.

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 the exact operation ('Modify a plan form') with the HTTP endpoint POST /api/xm/1/plans/{planId}/forms and lists the body fields involved. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_a_plan_form or update_form_recipients.

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 intended use is inferable from the verb and resource name, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this versus create_a_plan_form or other form-modification tools. It does not state when-not-to-use conditions or direct the agent to alternatives.

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