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

Annotations only declare the generic safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=false); the description adds real behavioral context the annotations cannot convey — the draft is pinned to the form's current reviewed version and is immune to later template edits, it is visible only to the signed-in user, and it returns application_id plus a revision.

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, zero filler, and the ordering is deliberate: what it creates, its pinning/privacy semantics, the return value and next call, then the when-not condition last as the deciding constraint.

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?

Even without an output schema the description explains what comes back (application_id and revision), how the draft behaves over time, who can see it, and which tool to call next. Nothing needed to invoke or sequence it correctly is missing.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Template ID (UUID) from a search_forms result'), which already documents source and format. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 for high coverage applies.

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 specific verb and resource ('Start a private draft for one form so answers can be saved') and immediately names the sibling that continues the workflow (update_application). An agent can distinguish this from get_application, search_forms, or validate_application without opening any schema.

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 an explicit when-not: 'Create it only when the user wants to fill the form, not just to read its questions.' It also names the alternative/next step (update_application with the user's answers), so routing is fully determined.

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