paydirt_create_form

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it clarifies that this creates a low-level form, maps feedback types, returns an ID, and expects Slack assignment. It also implies a safety step (checking for existing forms), which is useful. No contradiction with annotations; slight deduction because it doesn't explicitly mention the output schema despite 'returned ID' implying a response.

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?

Three sentences, each with a clear role: usage trigger, prerequisite/mapping, and preference for an alternative. The description is front-loaded with the primary use case and contains no filler or redundant restatement of the schema. It crams a lot of useful guidance into a compact form without feeling overloaded.

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 moderate complexity (5 params, one enum) and rich supporting context (output schema, annotations, sibling tool list), the description covers all necessary angles: when to use, what to check first, how to map enum values, what to do with the result, and which alternative to prefer. The required parameters are all implicitly addressed, and the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without further clarification.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds domain-specific meaning by explaining how to map real-world concepts to the 'type' enum: 'Map subscription cancellation to cancellation, trial cancellation to trial_expiration, and regular feedback to custom.' This goes beyond the raw enum labels and helps the agent select the correct type value. It also ties 'wire the returned ID into iOS and assign Slack' to the expected output, adding context for parameters like app_id and name.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'creating a low-level remote form without a host-app placement request.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from paydirt_add_feedback_form by stating that the latter is preferred for named screen or action placement. This makes the purpose immediately clear and differentiated from siblings.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this when creating a low-level remote form without a host-app placement request') and explicitly names the alternative tool to prefer for different scenarios. It also provides actionable pre-flight steps ('First confirm a matching form does not exist') and post-creation steps (wire the returned ID into iOS and assign Slack), fully covering usage context.

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