Create, rename or delete a form

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

Goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true) by explaining that a form consists of both designer storage and a code module, that this tool writes both, and that performing only half of a rename/delete would lose the form. This is concrete behavioral context that an agent needs and is consistent with the annotations.

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 carrying unique information: the core action, the rationale vs. sibling tools, and the operational constraint with follow-up tools. It is front-loaded and free of filler.

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?

The core behavior, the two-part form structure, the refusal condition for UserForms, and next steps (xlide_edit_form, xlide_write_module) are all covered. The allow_protected and allow_invalidate_signature parameters are not addressed, but they are documented in the schema, and an output schema exists, so this is only a minor gap for edge cases.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds some context around action-dependent behavior (e.g., rename/delete refused for UserForms) and the split nature of forms, but it does not add per-parameter details beyond the schema, which already documents defaults and units for width/height.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Creates a UserForm, or an Access form or report, and saves the file.' It also covers rename and delete semantics, and explicitly differentiates itself from xlide_write_module by explaining the two-part storage model. The title is equally informative.

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 names alternatives explicitly: 'which is why it exists rather than xlide_write_module', and 'Add controls afterwards with xlide_edit_form, and write its event procedures with xlide_write_module.' It also states when the tool refuses operations (UserForm rename/delete), so an agent knows when not to call it.

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