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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two meaningful traits: 'Forms already started keep their own copy' (replacement does not retroactively mutate live form instances) and 'Owner or office' (authorization requirement). It is silent on whether removed fields lose already-captured answers and on template visibility across the shop.

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?

A tight, front-loaded paragraph: purpose, mode switch, field ordering, type list, instance-preservation caveat, and permission note, each in one clause. No filler sentences and nothing repeated verbatim from the schema.

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 sparse schema documentation and an existing output schema, the description covers the operation modes, ordering, side effects on existing forms, and permissions. The remaining gap is shop scoping — an agent cannot tell from the definition whether omitting shop_id targets the caller's own shop or something else.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate: it does explain the replace semantics of form_template_id and that field order is meaningful, plus the full type vocabulary. But shop_id (a uuid with no schema description) is completely unaddressed, and name/description get no guidance, leaving the most consequential scoping parameter undefined.

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 a form template') with three concrete examples, and explicitly branches to the replace mode via form_template_id. It never names or contrasts with the closely-named sibling checklists_saveTemplate, so an agent must infer which family of templates to save into.

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 create-vs-replace decision is made explicit ('or replace one (give form_template_id)') and 'Owner or office' hints at permission scoping. There is no when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as forms_listTemplates for inspection, forms_archiveTemplate, or checklists_saveTemplate.

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