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

With only readOnlyHint=false as an annotation, the description adds important behavioral context: the operation replaces all steps, is confirm-gated, and only previews until confirm: true. It does not discuss permissions or failure modes, but the destructive replacement and preview behavior are well disclosed.

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 front-loaded with the core operation, then gives the critical replacement warning, prerequisite fetch, and confirm-gating in compact form. Every clause carries useful information.

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 complex nested mutation with no output schema, the description covers the key operational facts: replacement semantics, prerequisite read, organization scope, and preview/confirm behavior. Additional detail on output or validation could help, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 low at 33%, and the description adds meaning for organizationId and confirm. However, it does not explain the nested input structure, isPublished, hiddenDefaultSections, or question types beyond saying steps are replaced, so it only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 uses specific verbs ('Create or replace') and names the exact resource ('intake questionnaire'), while clarifying scope: the coach's own form or the gym's when organizationId is provided. It is clearly distinguishable from the read-only sibling get_client_intake_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?

It explicitly says to fetch get_client_intake_form first and edit that, which routes the agent to the correct prerequisite and alternative read tool. It also states the organizationId condition for gym-level forms and the confirm-gated workflow.

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