Add interactive form

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it generates a new PDF (not modifies existing), but does not disclose details like authentication requirements or performance. The schema covers parameters well, but behavioral details beyond annotations are minimal.

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?

Two succinct sentences: first defines the action and outputs, second states use cases. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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?

With a complex nested schema but 100% parameter coverage and an output schema present, the description is largely adequate. It could mention that the tool creates a standalone PDF (not appended), but the name 'add_form' might imply modifying an existing document. The description resolves this ambiguity, making it complete for most scenarios.

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?

All parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional meaning beyond summarizing field types. The description does not compensate with extra context on parameter usage or constraints.

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 'Generate a PDF containing an interactive AcroForm' and lists specific field types (text, textarea, checkbox, etc.), with use cases (data-capture, surveys, fillable templates). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_attachment or add_barcode.

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 mentions suitability for forms and surveys but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance. Sibling tools cover other PDF operations, so explicit differentiation would help.

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