update_form

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior itself. It does so by signaling partial-update semantics with 'Patch' and, more importantly, warning that fieldGroups must be sent as the full modified tree rather than a sparse patch. This is a meaningful behavioral nuance beyond the tool name and schema.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line summary, a terse argument list, and a single workflow sentence. There is no filler or repetition of schema data.

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 the open fields schema, the description provides the allowed keys and the critical fieldGroups workflow, and it points to get_form as a prerequisite. The output schema covers return values, so omitting them from the description is acceptable. A small gap is the lack of authentication or side-effect context, but the tool is still callable correctly with the information given.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does: form_id is explained as 'HubSpot form ID', and the free-form fields object is constrained to 'any of name, fieldGroups, configuration, displayOptions, legalConsentOptions.' This adds meaning the schema's additionalProperties object lacks.

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 begins with 'Patch a form', naming a specific verb and resource, then lists the editable categories. This makes it clearly distinct from sibling tools like create_form, duplicate_form, and get_form without being tautological.

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?

It provides a concrete workflow: 'To change the field set, call get_form first, modify the returned fieldGroups, and pass the whole tree back here.' This gives clear context for an important use case. It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but the form-specific resource and patch semantics make the intended usage reasonably clear.

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