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

The description goes far beyond annotations by disclosing that the call clones structure, scoring/report configuration, visual settings, and all language versions in one call. It also surfaces the critical non-idempotency behavior: timeouts may have succeeded, so blind retries can create duplicates. This is exactly the kind of behavioral nuance an agent needs.

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 dense but every sentence contributes: what it does, what it copies, how to override the title, where to find template IDs, when to prefer it, and the duplicate-risk caveat. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes no filler.

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 two-parameter creation tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential context: source of IDs, scope of cloning, post-creation workflow, alternatives, and unique failure behavior. The non-idempotency warning addresses the most important edge case an agent could encounter.

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 already 100%, so the schema documents both parameters. The description adds practical meaning by explaining how to discover a templateId via list_templates and how title overrides the template title. This supplements the schema without repeating it.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new form in the current team from a public template.' It further distinguishes this tool from sibling create_form by positioning it as the template-based path, and points to list_templates for ID lookup. This is unambiguous and well-separated from related tools.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: prefer this when a suitable template exists, versus building from scratch with create_form. It also references list_templates for finding template IDs and mentions post-creation adjustment via update_form / update_question. This effectively routes the agent to the correct tool among many siblings.

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