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

The annotations carry only generic false hints, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses non-obvious behavior: unspecified configuration gets defaults, plan rules apply, and a refused configuration 'creates nothing,' implying an atomic failure rather than a partial create.

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?

Three sentences, with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and no filler. Each remaining sentence adds either default behavior, plan constraints, or a required-parameter condition.

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 10-parameter nested create with 90% schema coverage, the description supplies the missing high-level semantics: defaults, plan limits, atomic refusal, and the return value. It deliberately delegates configuration details to update_form rather than duplicating them, which is a reasonable trade-off. It could be slightly more explicit about the full response shape, but the endpoint URL statement covers the key return need.

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 high at 90%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a useful global rule: 'what you leave out gets the defaults,' which tells the agent which parameters can be safely omitted. It also re-emphasizes the contextual team_id requirement. It appropriately avoids repeating field-level details already present in the schema.

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 clear action and object: 'Creates a form.' It also names the key return artifact ('returns it with the endpoint URL to post submissions to'), and the create/update/get/list distinction is obvious from the verb and sibling names.

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?

Gives concrete call guidance: pass only name plus optional configuration, omitted fields inherit defaults, and team_id is required only in multi-team connections. Plan-level constraints also set expectations for when creation may be refused. It references update_form rather than explicitly contrasting the two, but the usage context is clear.

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