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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about authentication requirements, whether duplicate form names fail, whether creation is reversible, rate limits, or what a successful call returns. The api_key parameter implies auth but the description itself gives no behavioral context for a write operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. The word "another" is slightly odd without prior conversational context, but nothing in the sentence is wasted.

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?

This is an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description should ideally cover auth expectations and create-vs-update behavior. The schema handles parameter documentation well, but the behavioral envelope an agent needs before calling a write tool is only partially inferred.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters including the kind enum and each delivery target. The description adds no format, default, or interaction detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Create another form endpoint") and clarifies the unit of creation with the parenthetical about one endpoint per distinct form. It is clearly distinguishable from read-side siblings like doorman_list_forms or doorman_list_submissions, though it never contrasts with doorman_update_form.

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 parenthetical "one per distinct form on the site" implies when to create (a new distinct form) versus reuse an existing endpoint, but there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of doorman_update_form as the alternative for existing forms, and no prerequisites stated.

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