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

Annotations declare a non-read, non-destructive, non-idempotent write with no open-world access, and the description adds real context beyond that: the original is not altered, the copy lands as an unpublished draft under a new link, and it is auto-named «(copy)». It stops short of saying what is returned (e.g. the new form's id/link) or any permission requirements.

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?

One dense sentence with the verb and resulting artifact front-loaded, plus a short imperative for the input. Every clause (what is copied, naming, unpublished state) earns its place, though the run-on list is slightly hard to parse.

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 mutation with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers what is created and its state, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly. The only real gap is whether the response exposes the new form's id/link, which the agent would need for follow-up calls like publish_a_form.

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% and the single parameter already documents 'Form id or slug'. The sentence 'Pass the form's id or slug' merely restates the schema, adding no format, validation, or lookup behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full load.

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 ('Copy a form as a new draft') and enumerates exactly what is copied (fields, words and settings) and the resulting state (new link, named «(copy)», unpublished). This cleanly separates it from siblings like create_a_form, update_form, and get_form without needing schema inspection.

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 description anchors usage by referencing 'as the forms list's Duplicate does', which implies it is for replicating an existing form rather than authoring a new one, and it names the required input. However, it never states when-not to use it (e.g. use create_a_form to start from scratch) or any prerequisite such as the target form needing to exist or be accessible.

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