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

Annotations carry no hints, so the description bears the full burden. It usefully discloses privacy defaults ('private by default') and the effect of the public flag ('anonymous submissions; responses always remain private'), which is real behavioral context beyond the schema. But it omits auth requirements and what 'replace' does to an existing form's collected responses — a notable gap for a mutation tool.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the operation, then field structure, then privacy semantics. No filler. Slightly dense but every sentence carries 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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers purpose, field shape, and privacy behavior. It still leaves id/replace semantics, closed, and title/description unexplained, so an agent cannot fully call it without guessing.

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 0% across 6 params, so the description must compensate. It documents the fields array shape (name, label, type, required) and the meaning of public, but says nothing about id (create vs. replace key), title, closed, or description, leaving half the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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+resource: 'Create or replace a form.' The upsert phrasing distinguishes it from forms_read/forms_list/forms_delete, though it never names those siblings explicitly. An agent can tell what it does without ambiguity.

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?

'Create or replace' implies this is the write path for both new and existing forms, which is implied usage guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no reference to alternative tools such as forms_responses or forms_delete.

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