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

Annotations declare non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world; the description's addition of 'draft' tells the agent the created resource is not immediately live and needs a publish step — a meaningful detail beyond annotations. It still omits what happens if a form with the same name exists (non-idempotent consequence) and what is returned.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical enum list is the only slightly redundant part since the schema already enumerates those values.

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 4 params including two nested free-form objects and no output schema, the description should at least hint at the create-to-draft-to-publish lifecycle and whether a default template is used. The schema mentions the default template, so the description is not required to, but its coverage of behavior for a mutating tool is thin.

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 roughly 50%: 'settings' and 'definition' carry descriptions, while 'name' and 'type' do not. The description simply restates the type enum values already in the schema and adds no syntax or constraint meaning for the required 'name' parameter. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Create a draft signup form') and it names the form types supported, so the agent knows this is the create counterpart to update-form/publish-form/delete-form. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 word 'draft' implies the form is not live until publish-form is called, which is a useful implicit cue. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus update-form, nor any prerequisites (workspace context, permission needs) spelled out.

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