forms_conditions_submit_createAdd a condition group that gates a form's submit button and return the created group with its ID.
Add a condition group gating the form's submit button; returns it with its id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | The new group: operator + at least one clause. | |
| survey_id | Yes | Form id (24-char hex), from ``surveys_list``. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.67.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a non-idempotent write (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false) that is non-destructive. The description adds one useful behavioral fact beyond them — that the created group is returned with its id, which matters since there is no output schema — but says nothing about permissions or limits.
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 covering action, target, scope, and return value with zero wasted words.
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 rich nested schema and the annotations carry most of the burden, and the return-value note compensates for the absent output schema. However, for a write tool creating a gating group, the description omits prerequisites and how this interacts with the existing submit-condition (update/set_operator siblings).
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% and the nested body/clause structure is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes no additional meaning about body, operator, or clause fields.
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), resource (condition group), and scope (gating the form's submit button), plus the return value. This clearly separates it from the question/page/hook condition families via the 'submit button' scope, though it does not name sibling tools directly.
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 guidance on when to use this versus forms_conditions_submit_update or the sibling condition families, and no stated prerequisites (e.g. the form must exist, ordering constraints). Usage must be inferred from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.