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

Annotations already supply readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds complementary context by stating the concrete behavior (takes the form offline, stops responses), the auth requirement, and the return value (confirmation message). It does not contradict any annotation.

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 front-loaded: the verb and immediate effect appear first, followed by the auth requirement and a brief args/returns structure. There is no filler, and every sentence contributes operational knowledge.

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 single-parameter toggle operation, the description plus annotations cover the action, effect, auth, safety profile, and return type. It does not describe the exact confirmation message format or mention the relationship to foxform_publish_form, but those are minor gaps for this simple tool.

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 fully documents the only parameter with a description ('Form ID'), so the baseline is 3. The description merely repeats 'form_id (string)' without adding meaning beyond the schema, such as accepted formats, lifecycle requirements, or error cases.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource—'Unpublish a form'—and immediately clarifies the meaning with 'takes it offline; stops accepting responses.' This clearly distinguishes it from read-only siblings and the opposite action foxform_publish_form without needing to inspect the schema.

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 purpose itself implies when to use the tool: when a form should stop accepting responses. It also adds a practical prerequisite by requiring a WRITE-scoped API key. However, it never explicitly names alternatives, says 'use this instead of X,' or explains when not to use it—leaving the routing to inference.

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