alterios_upsert_form

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

No annotations are provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions write gates, but ignores other key aspects: dry_run default behavior, idempotency, side effects, or that planning mode exists.

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loaded, but at the expense of necessary detail. It does not provide enough information to be truly useful.

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?

Considering the tool's complexity (11 parameters, upsert semantics, dry run mode, output schema exists but not mentioned), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to cover parameter usage, return value, or typical 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain any parameters beyond the tool's general function. For 11 parameters including dry_run, tabs, etc., this is a critical gap.

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 uses specific verb 'upsert' and resource 'Alterios form', making the purpose clear. It distinguishes from siblings like alterios_patch_form_tabs by covering full form creation/update.

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?

Mentions 'Execution requires explicit write gates' as a prerequisite, but lacks guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., patch tools) or context like expected workflow.

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