forms_update_settings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool updates settings but does not mention that this is a write operation, any potential side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or how partial updates are handled. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 a single, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the action and includes practical examples. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity, though it could add a bit more behavioral context without becoming verbose.

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?

The tool is a mutation operation with no annotations, no output schema details visible, and a brief description. Given the presence of siblings that modify forms (e.g., forms_update_question), the description lacks crucial context about the scope of 'settings', permissions, and how it fits into the broader form-management workflow. The minimal information may lead to incorrect tool selection or 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains two parameters (is_quiz as 'make it a quiz', description as 'change description') but completely omits the required form_id parameter. It also does not clarify update semantics (e.g., whether null values leave existing settings untouched), leaving ambiguity.

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 ('Update form settings') and gives concrete examples ('make it a quiz, change description'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like forms_add_question or forms_update_question. The verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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 when to use this tool (when updating form-level settings) but provides no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references. The examples of quiz and description help infer usage context, but there is no guidance on exclusions or prerequisites.

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