configure_autoresponse

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the mutation action, required API key, and the paid-plan caveat with actionable output (upgrade message and upgrade_url). This goes beyond a simple 'configure' statement and helps the agent anticipate failures.

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?

Two sentences, with the main action front-loaded and no unnecessary words. Every clause adds value, from the operation to the authentication requirement to the plan limitation handling.

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 description covers the main edge case (paid-plan restriction) and identifies the required input (form_id, enabled) via the schema. It doesn't detail the success return value, but for a configuration tool that's acceptable. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the clear action and error case.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what parameters exist (enabled, subject, body_html, etc.), making the baseline of 3 appropriate.

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 'Enable, disable, or configure the auto-response email sent to people who submit a form', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like create_form and get_submissions by focusing on auto-response configuration.

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?

Gives clear usage context: requires FORMSLIST_API_KEY and notes that auto-responses are a paid-plan feature. It explains what happens on plan limitations (relay upgrade message and upgrade_url), though it doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools.

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