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

Annotations indicate no destructive or idempotent behavior, and the description adds that creation results in a draft state, linking to a separate activation tool. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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 extremely concise, using only two sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately follows with key constraints and behavioral notes, with no filler words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, nested array) and no output schema, the description covers creation, draft state, activation requirement, and host prerequisite. It omits potential error cases or limits but is sufficient for typical usage.

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 0%, so the description bears the burden. It lists the main parameters (event_id, name) and enumerates question types and their properties (options, required, placeholder). However, it does not fully detail the structure of the questions object or all schema properties, leaving some gaps.

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 clearly states it creates a registration/intake form for a live event, specifying the verb 'Create' and the resource 'form'. It lists supported question types and distinguishes from related tools like set_form_active and update_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?

The description mentions that forms start as draft and require activation via set_form_active, and that the user must be a host. It provides clear when-to-use context but does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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