Add interactive form

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the description's statement 'Generate a PDF' is consistent with creating new content. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as the interactive nature of the AcroForm, but does not disclose potential side effects like file overwriting (mitigated by sandboxing).

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 extremely concise: two sentences front-loaded with the core action and supported field types, followed by a brief suitability statement. No redundant or irrelevant information, every phrase 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?

Given the presence of an output schema (context signal: true), the description need not explain return values. It covers the tool's core functionality well. However, it lacks guidance on parameter relationships (e.g., outputMode with outputPath) and does not mention PDF/A options or footer text, though these are detailed in the schema. Slightly more context on usage scenarios would improve 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 6 parameters, so the description adds limited additional meaning. It mentions field types already listed in the schema and introduces the concept of 'interactive AcroForm', which is not in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the information load.

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 verb 'Generate' and the resource 'PDF containing an interactive AcroForm', and explicitly lists all supported field types (text, textarea, checkbox, radio, dropdown). It also mentions suitable use cases (data-capture forms, surveys, fillable templates), distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_table 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 implies usage for interactive forms by stating suitability for data-capture, surveys, and templates, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. No mention of when not to use it or comparison with siblings.

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