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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, non-idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuine context beyond them: the draft-then-publish lifecycle, the validation gate on publish, and the required form_templates:write scope. It stops short of describing the response, which keeps it below a perfect score.

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-loads the definition, then a compact ordered sequence of steps with no redundant sentences. Every clause (workflow order, alternative bulk path, publish gate, scope) earns its place.

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 create tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what the object is, the multi-step workflow it belongs to, the publishing constraint, and the auth scope.

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 name, module, status, description, and work_category_id are all already documented in the schema. The description adds no field-level syntax or constraints, so the 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+resource ('Create a form template') and then defines the domain object concretely as 'a reusable inspection, checklist, compliance, or survey definition', which distinguishes it from siblings like create_form_response or create_pm_template.

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 frames the tool as 'Step 1' of a multi-step workflow and names the exact follow-up tools (create_form_template_item, bulk_create on form-template-items, update_form_template status=published), including the condition that publishing is rejected if a question is malformed.

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