Collect any values blindly (forms, tables, CSV)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses that values never reach the agent, that only metadata ({request_id, status, rows_written, ids, stored, keys, field_errors}) is returned, and that non-store sinks surface a template with ${field} placeholders requiring the person's approval. These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent needs for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core mechanic and closing with the preview recommendation. Dense but every sentence carries information; only the sink enumeration slightly bloats the opener.

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?

For a complex, deeply nested tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape and the approval behavior, which is essential. It omits any mention of metadata/expiry or size limits, a minor residual gap against the very large schema.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the two key parameters: it enumerates schema capabilities (sections, typed fields, validations, showIf, repeaters with CSV import) and sink types (store, http, sql, file, ops-dataload, callback). It adds no meaning for metadata, description, or submit_label, leaving those to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: send a schema and a sink to collect values blindly, with a named list of sink types. It distinguishes itself from the sibling blind_input_preview and from value-returning tools by emphasizing 'you never receive values,' so an agent can tell what this tool is for without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear operational guidance: 'Use blind_input_preview first to validate a complex schema' and notes that non-store sinks require explicit approval on the page. It lacks explicit when-not guidance relative to other capture siblings like secret_request or web_capture, so no full alternatives mapping.

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