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

Annotations already declare non-idempotent and destructive, but the description adds real value beyond them: draft-by-default state, the notification side effect of send_immediate, the confirm=true approval prerequisite, and the consequence of double-calling. It does not describe the response or how to recover from a mistaken creation, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Roughly five dense sentences, front-loaded with the operation and write semantics, then safety (confirm), then input resolution, then the non-idempotency warning. No filler; every sentence carries a distinct instruction.

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 13-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the critical gaps: required confirm, required due time, draft vs. send semantics, and identity resolution. It omits nothing that would cause a wrong call, though it does not mention what a successful call returns or how to locate the created task.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds selection guidance the schema does not: the worker can be identified by email, user id, or external id, and answers must use field data names from formsonfire_get_form. That reduces mis-selection among the three mutually substitutable worker parameters.

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?

Opens with an explicit verb+resource ('WRITE: create a task') and specifies the resource scope (one form, one field worker, optional prefilled answers). It is unmistakably distinct from siblings like get_task or search_tasks, and even names the endpoint.

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?

Explicitly states the default behavior (draft), the opt-in alternative (send_immediate=true sends and notifies), the required confirm gate, and points to the sibling tools needed to resolve inputs (list_users, formsonfire_get_form). This is genuine when-to-use/when-not guidance with alternatives named.

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