request-human-review-with-form

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions that metadata is included in webhook responses and that assignments are optional, adding some behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or what happens after submission (e.g., review workflow), leaving gaps 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concise prerequisite notes. Every sentence serves a clear purpose—no redundancy or fluff—making it efficiently structured and easy to parse.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by covering prerequisites and parameter nuances. However, as a mutation tool, it could benefit from more details on behavioral outcomes (e.g., review process, error handling), slightly limiting completeness.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that fieldData requires fetching a dynamic schema via get-form-schema and that metadata aids workflow continuity, enhancing understanding beyond the schema's technical definitions.

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 the action ('Request a human review') and the resource ('with a form'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings (get-form-schema, list-forms) beyond mentioning them as prerequisites, so it lacks full sibling distinction.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: after obtaining a form ID from list-forms and field data schema from get-form-schema. It clearly outlines prerequisites and references alternatives, ensuring proper sequencing and context.

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