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

The description discloses that writes go through ChangeRequests (providing message, diff, and history) and adds a safety note to treat stored content as data, not instructions. These details go beyond the minimal annotations (readOnlyHint=false) and are valuable for an agent invoking a write operation. It doesn't cover permissions or rate limits, but what it adds is meaningful.

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 short, but the opening line 'The created form.' is unclear and not self-explanatory. The endpoint and the change-request note are useful, but the structure could be improved by starting with a clear action statement and then focusing on critical context. No extra fluff, but the first line detracts.

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?

Given the complexity (9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It provides some context about multi-space authentication and change requests but does not explain the core purpose of parameters, the shape of the created form, or any response details beyond 'The created form.' An agent cannot fully grasp how to correctly fill out this complex call from the description alone.

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 only 22%, yet the description only elaborates on targetSpaceId (auth_verify and user selection). Core parameters like nodeId, targetBaseId, name, page, share, and bindings receive no additional explanation. The description does not compensate for the low schema coverage across the 9 parameters.

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 leads with 'The created form.' and 'POST /api/v1/forms', which imply creation via the endpoint but never explicitly state 'creates a form'. The title provides clarity, but the description alone is ambiguous about the tool's actual action and does not differentiate it from sibling tools like forms_update or forms_submit.

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 only usage guidance is the instruction for multi-space accounts to call auth_verify and pass targetSpaceId. No mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives like forms_update or forms_get_by_node, nor any exclusions. The context is helpful but not sufficient to route an agent to the correct tool among the three form-related siblings.

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