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

Annotations already establish write, non-destructive, closed-world, so the description only needs to add context, and it does: the new form arrives with default welcome and thank-you screens, and the slug is returned. It stops short of noting permission requirements or whether the workspace can be chosen explicitly.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the return value, then the workflow. No sentence is filler and nothing repeats the tool name without adding 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly discloses that the slug is returned, which is the key piece for chaining into add-block-tool. For a one-parameter creation tool that is nearly everything an agent needs; only permission or workspace-scoping caveats are absent.

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% and the single name parameter already documents its "My Form" default, so the schema carries parameter semantics on its own. The description mentions nothing about naming behavior, which is the baseline-3 outcome rather than a gap that needed compensating.

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?

"Create a new blank form" gives a specific verb plus resource, and "blank" plus "with default welcome and thank-you screens" scopes exactly what kind of form is produced. "In the user's current workspace" pins down where it lands, so an agent can distinguish it from form-creation variants without opening the schema.

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 lays out a clear create-then-add-block-then-publish sequence, naming add-block-tool and publish-form-tool as the next steps. It does not explicitly route away to the sibling create-form-with-questions-tool, which is the obvious alternative when questions are already known, so the exclusion is left implicit.

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