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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false). The description adds real context beyond them: it requires form_templates:write scope, defaults to draft status, and warns that publishing is rejected if any question is malformed. It does not say what the response returns, which matters for chaining to step 2.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the workflow steps; no filler sentences. It is a dense single paragraph, but every clause (definition, sequencing, validation constraint, scope) carries information.

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?

Covers creation, the downstream steps needed to make a usable form, the auth requirement, and the publish validation rule, with no output schema left unexplained. The one omission is that it never states the created template id is returned, which the agent needs to call create_form_template_item next.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, including enums and the work_category_id lookup hint. The description reinforces the draft-vs-published semantics for status but adds no new parameter-level detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource and defines what a form template is (reusable inspection/checklist/compliance/survey definition). It also positions itself in the workflow relative to create_form_template_item and update_form_template, so an agent can distinguish it from its nearest siblings.

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?

Explicit sequencing: 'Step 1 of building a form', draft first, then add questions via create_form_template_item or bulk_create on form-template-items, then publish via update_form_template status=published. It names the alternatives and the condition that selects each, which is exactly the when-to-use guidance needed.

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