Delete a form (irreversible)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers the critical traits: permanence, irreversibility, and immediate public-URL breakage, plus tenant scoping. It omits cascade effects (e.g., what happens to the form's submissions) and any permission/auth requirements beyond tenant ownership.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the highest-consequence fact (permanent deletion) followed by consequences and the safety instruction. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition of the title.

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?

For a one-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: scope, irreversibility, blast radius, and a call-for-confirmation guardrail. Missing detail on cascading deletion of related submissions and error behavior (e.g., unknown formId) keeps it from being fully complete.

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 100%, so the single formId parameter (UUID format) is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, which matches the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ("permanently delete a form") and scopes it ("belonging to the API key's tenant"). The destructive intent is unambiguous and clearly distinguished from the read/create siblings (list_forms, get_form, create_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?

Explicitly tells the agent when not to act autonomously ("Confirm with the user before calling this — do not delete a form on your own initiative"), which is strong operational guidance for a destructive tool. It doesn't name an alternative action (e.g., disabling or archiving a form instead), so it stops just short of full alternative routing.

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