Update Form Set

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond them: it does not say whether this is a full replacement of the forms array or a merge, nor that slug/resource_type submissions are silently ignored — all of which live only in the schema and matter for a mutation with nested objects.

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?

One short clause with no waste, so it is certainly concise and front-loaded. But for a mutation with a nested object payload it reads as under-specification rather than economy — a single sentence that carries almost no decision-relevant information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a write operation with a nested `data.attributes` payload and silently-ignored fields, the description leaves key semantics (replace vs. append for `forms`, immutability of resource_type) to the schema, making it thin relative to the tool's complexity.

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 50%, but the individual property descriptions are unusually rich (path id naming caveat, ignored JSON:API id, deprecated slug, enumerated built-in form slugs). The description only echoes 'by id', adding nothing, but the schema is doing enough work that baseline 3 is warranted.

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 plus resource ('Update a specific form_set by id'), which is clearly distinct from create_form_set / get_form_set. However it offers no differentiation from the related sibling update_form_set_condition, and does not say what parts of the set are updatable (name vs. forms list).

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 on when to use this tool versus create_form_set, get_form_set, or update_form_set_condition, and no prerequisites (e.g., that the caller must know the existing resource_type and forms before writing). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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