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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing what is cloned (structure, scoring/report config, visual settings, language versions) and what is deliberately dropped (redirect-after-submit, CTA URLs switched off). It also flags non-idempotency and the timeout/duplicate hazard, which the readOnlyHint=false/destructiveHint=false pair does not convey. Minor gap: no mention of auth/permission requirements or where the new form lands beyond 'current team'.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then consequences, then caveats; each sentence carries information. Slightly dense in the middle (the CTA/link detail) but nothing is padding, and the non-idempotency warning is correctly placed last.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, only two simple params, and the description still covers cloning scope, dropped links, follow-up editing, and retry safety. Nothing an agent needs to call this 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds the provenance of templateId (find it with list_templates) and restates the title override in operational terms ('Pass title to override the template title'). That is small but real added meaning.

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 ('Create a new form in the current team from a public template') and immediately names the input source, distinguishing it from create_form and list_templates by name.

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?

Explicit routing: use list_templates to find ids, prefer this over create_form when a suitable template exists, and follow up with update_form / update_question. It also gives a when-not-to-blindly-retry rule, which is genuine usage guidance.

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