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

Annotations already declare that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation in a closed world. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it returns ready-to-use HTML with the action URL, honeypot field, and hidden spam-check inputs, and submissions begin only once that HTML is live.

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?

Two sentences are front-loaded with the creation action and then the returned HTML, with no wasted wording. The activation condition is included compactly in the second sentence.

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 creation tool with annotations covering safety, this is mostly complete: it explains the key return behavior even though no output schema exists. It does not cover permissions, validation behavior, or how the tool relates to update_form, but those are secondary given the schema and annotations.

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 50%, and the description explicitly references only siteId as the existing site. The schema covers name, fields, nested field properties, and successMessage, but the description adds little parameter-level meaning for those inputs.

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: it creates a form endpoint for an existing site identified by siteId. It also clarifies the notable output, ready-to-use HTML, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling update_form tool.

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 implies when to use it: for an existing site, when you need form HTML with spam protection that can be embedded to start receiving submissions. It does not explicitly say when to use update_form or get_form instead, so the usage guidance is contextual rather than explicit.

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