Create Forms integration-group condition

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true), so safety is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact — the response includes the created entity's id — but omits auth/permission requirements and any note that the referenced hook must already exist.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler that leads with the action and ends with the return value. It is arguably too terse for a tool with a nested object body, but nothing is wasted.

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 a 3-required-param nested mutation with no output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description is adequate but thin: it does not explain the effect of the condition group on the integration group, nor when the hook must pre-exist. Annotations and schema carry most of the burden, so a 3 fits.

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 100%, with survey_id, hook_id, and the nested body fully documented (including the note contrasting write vs read clause semantics). The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Add) and resource (a condition group to an integration group), and even discloses the return shape (the created group with its id). An agent can distinguish it from forms_conditions_hook_update / _set_operator by the create action, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to the neighboring forms_conditions_hook_* tools (update, set_operator, delete). The agent must infer that this is for creating a new group rather than modifying an existing one.

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