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

The description discloses several behaviors beyond the annotations: the endpoint is inert until assignment, it is movable and un-assignable later, submissions stay with it, and retrying the same name while unassigned returns the existing endpoint instead of duplicating. It also explains the privacy-driven design that no tool reads submissions. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=false or destructiveHint=false.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: main output first, then lifecycle, idempotency, privacy, and naming convention. It is dense but not bloated, and the most actionable guidance is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description still explains return values (URL + exact HTML snippet) and covers the full creation-to-deployment lifecycle. It includes the critical requirement to ask the user for notifyEmail and gives a clear naming format. The tool is fully callable based on 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 100%, so the schema already documents name, slug, and notifyEmail in detail. The description adds a naming convention and idempotency context for repeated names, but does not need to compensate for missing schema information.

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 states a specific action ('Create a form endpoint'), the resource, and key outputs (URL + HTML snippet). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_booking_page or create_data_collection by focusing on form endpoints and their deployment lifecycle.

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?

It gives explicit timing context: create BEFORE deploying, and explains the tool is inert until assigned via assign_to_project. It also notes that submissions cannot be read by any tool, providing a clear when-not. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative create tools, so it stops 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.