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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so safety and repeat-behavior are covered structurally. The description adds meaningful context the annotations cannot: the result is a non-public draft until publish, and template copy is rendered in the workspace's own name.

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?

Draft status and the publish/update routing are front-loaded, and the template definitions are packed into one dense sentence. It is long but nearly every clause adds distinguishing information, with only mild redundancy between the template list and the enum.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description implies but never states what is returned (e.g. a form id needed to later publish or update). Otherwise it covers creation semantics, template behavior, and the lifecycle handoff adequately for a 2-parameter 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?

Schema coverage is only 50% (the template enum has no description), so the description carries the burden and does so well, explaining exactly what each of lead/demo/quote/newsletter produces. This meaningfully exceeds what the raw enum conveys.

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+resource ('Make a Smart Form') and immediately scopes it as a draft, which cleanly distinguishes it from publish_a_form and update_form. It also enumerates the template variants by name, so an agent can match intent without opening 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?

Explicitly says nothing is public until publish_a_form and routes field/word edits to update_form, giving clear context and two named alternatives. It does not spell out a 'when not to use' case (e.g. use duplicate_a_form to copy an existing form), so it falls just short of a 5.

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