create_form

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 non-obvious behavior: the notification address receives a verification email and notifications are held until the owner confirms. It omits auth/permission requirements and failure behavior, but the verification gating is genuinely valuable context not present in the schema.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return value, then behavior, then input guidance. Dense but earned; the only slight cost is the final sentence packing three alternatives into one clause.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential return value and the trickiest behavioral quirk. Remaining gaps (hosted/redirect/allowedOrigins semantics, auth) are largely handled by the rich schema descriptions, so an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 already 89%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by spelling out the shape of each fields entry ({name,label,type,required}) that the schema leaves as an undescribed object, and by clarifying the fields/template/neither choice.

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 and resource ('Create a form') and adds the key output ('Returns the endpoint URL to POST submissions to'), so an agent immediately knows what it gets. It does not name or contrast against siblings like list_forms or get_form_snippet, so there is no explicit differentiation.

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?

Offers meaningful selection logic among the definition inputs ('Pass either fields ... or a template slug, or neither for name/email/message'), which resolves a real ambiguity. However, it gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (list_templates, list_forms) or any preconditions for calling it.

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