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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it creates a draft, is restricted to non-free businesses, and requires a permission check. This is valuable since annotations only indicate it's not read-only and not destructive, leaving the description to fully disclose behavioral traits.

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 front-loaded with the action and contains necessary procedural steps, but the two sentences are long and dense. It is informative without being overly verbose, though it could be slightly more concise by separating guidelines from the main action.

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 simple parameter set and lack of output schema, the description covers the core action, prerequisites, and restrictions well. It does not describe return values or error scenarios, but these are not strictly required; however, for a mutation tool, a note about the output (e.g., the created draft's ID) would improve completeness.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description does not compensate by explaining the parameters individually. While the names formId and communityId are somewhat self-explanatory and the description provides some context (e.g., 'for a community'), it does not clarify constraints, formats, or relationships between them, leaving the agent to infer.

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 clearly states the action: duplicate a lead form as a draft for a community. It specifies the verb 'Duplicate' and the resource 'lead form', with context of the authenticated user's community. Among siblings like delete_lead_form, update_lead_form, etc., this tool's purpose is unmistakable.

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 description explicitly outlines when to use the tool: only for businesses with proper permissions, not for FREE businesses. It mandates calling check_business_tool_access before collecting inputs, and warns against proceeding when access is blocked, providing clear guidance on alternatives and prerequisites.

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