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

Clearly discloses destructive behavior: 'Updating fields replaces the full list and deletes omitted fields; preserve existing field IDs.' Also notes 'Field edits are blocked for forms with white-labeled services.' These details go beyond the annotations (destructiveHint) by explaining exactly what happens, making behavior fully transparent.

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 five sentences, with the primary purpose stated first ('Create or update forms.'). Each subsequent sentence adds a distinct, necessary detail without redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with 11 parameters and nested field objects, the description covers key behavioral rules (replacement/deletion semantics, form-type requirements, white-label blocking) while relying on the fully covered schema for parameter details. It provides sufficient context for correct invocation without over-explaining.

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 descriptions already cover all 11 parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds cross-parameter semantics such as 'Creation requires type, name and the full initial fields list' (conditional requirements) and 'Order/contact forms require email' (domain rules not obvious from individual parameter descriptions), providing additional meaning beyond 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?

The description opens with 'Create or update forms,' which clearly names the verb and resource. It distinguishes this write tool from siblings like form-read and form-folder-write by focusing on form creation/update operations.

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?

Provides usage guidance such as 'Creation requires type, name and the full initial fields list' and 'Omit fields to change form settings only.' It also notes domain rules like order forms requiring a service-bearing field. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, though the context makes it inferable.

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