unshare_form

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the action ('removes form sharing') and outcome ('Returns: Updated sharing status'), but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this requires specific permissions, if it's reversible, what happens to existing group access, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 appropriately concise with three brief sentences that each serve a purpose: action statement, usage hint, and return information. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. While efficient, the 'Usage:' line could be integrated more smoothly rather than as a separate fragment.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, but with an output schema present, the description provides basic action and return context. However, it lacks important details about permissions, side effects, and parameter semantics that would be needed for safe and effective use. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but other gaps remain significant.

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% (no parameter descriptions in schema), and the description provides no information about the single parameter 'form_id'. The description doesn't explain what format the form_id should be (string vs. integer as shown in schema), where to find it, or any validation rules. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the parameter documentation gap.

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 tool's purpose: 'Removes form sharing with groups' specifies the verb (removes) and resource (form sharing with groups). It distinguishes from siblings like 'share_form' by indicating opposite functionality. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other form management tools like 'delete_form' or 'unpublish_form' beyond the sharing aspect.

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 provides implied usage context: 'Make form private again' suggests this tool should be used when a previously shared form needs to be made private. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., vs. 'unpublish_form' for different privacy aspects) or mention prerequisites like requiring existing shared status. The guidance is helpful but incomplete compared to explicit alternatives.

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