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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it returns a recipe containing tool sequence, form settings, node configuration, scoring setup, and end screen config, and it explicitly excludes craft knowledge.

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 long but appropriately detailed given 19 parameters and many form-type variants. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and return value before diving into aliases and optional arguments. The alias list is extensive yet useful, though it makes the description harder to scan and could arguably be trimmed.

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?

The description covers return content, exclusions, aliases, variants, and per-type parameters, which is impressive for such a complex tool. However, the 'Available types' list omits 'funnel' even though funnel appears later in optional-args sections, creating a minor inconsistency. With no output schema, the description also leaves the exact shape of the 'build recipe' somewhat open.

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%, but the description goes well beyond the schema by mapping parameters to specific form types, providing defaults like question_count (8), response_format (all), anonymous (true), and clarifying variant-specific parameter usage. This substantially improves an agent's ability to select and fill parameters correctly.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve a step-by-step build workflow for creating a specific form type.' It clearly differentiates itself from sibling tools, especially clipform_get_guide, by explicitly stating what it does NOT return and where to get that alternative type of knowledge.

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 usage context: use this tool when a build recipe is needed, and use clipform_get_guide when craft knowledge is required. It also enumerates supported form types, aliases, variants, and per-type optional arguments, giving an agent strong guidance for choosing and configuring the call.

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