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

Annotations only mark this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation, so the description adds real value: it discloses that unpublished edits are carried into the copy, that ownership is builder-owned, and that visibility is private until published. It does not mention permissions required or whether the source form is touched, which would complete the picture.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action and its scope front-loaded ahead of the visibility caveat. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers origin, content, ownership, and visibility well. It stops just short of the one operationally relevant detail an agent might need — whether the copy is immediately addressable or requires a subsequent publish step.

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% (both 'form' and 'name' are documented in the schema), so the schema carries the burden and a baseline 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as how 'name' defaults if omitted.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Copy a form') plus the resulting artifact ('a new builder-owned draft') and scope ('into the same project'), so an agent knows exactly what the call produces. It does not name or distinguish itself from near-neighbors such as fillo_pull_form or fillo_get_library_form, which an agent might reasonably confuse with a copy operation.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The clause 'The copy is private until published' only implicitly suggests a follow-up with fillo_publish_form, leaving the agent to infer the workflow.

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