Criar formulário completo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and it discloses a critical behavioral trait: by default, the form is already published, and users must set unpublished=true to create a draft. This is a significant side effect beyond parameter definitions. It does not cover permissions, rate limits, or error cases, but the key publish-state behavior is well highlighted.

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 three sentences: the first states purpose, the second gives a direct usage recommendation, and the third highlights a critical default behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler, front-loading the core action.

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 the tool's complexity (6 parameters, nested questions) and lack of output schema, the description covers the main operational aspects: what it creates, order preservation, and publication default. It does not mention the response format or failure modes, but the schema covers parameter details, making this reasonably complete for invocation.

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%, providing solid parameter docs. The description adds value by clarifying the 'unpublished' parameter's impact (default published vs draft) and stressing that questions appear 'in the given order', which maps to the questions array. This meaningfully enhances the schema's baseline.

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 clearly states the tool creates an entire form in one operation, listing the included components (title, description, quiz mode, all questions in order). It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by advising to prefer this over chaining create_form and multiple add_question calls, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance by recommending this tool over chaining create_form + add_question, which directly addresses when to use it. It also mentions the unpublished parameter for draft creation, offering context on how to control publication. However, it does not mention when not to use it (e.g., for incremental updates or large forms beyond limits), so it misses some exclusions.

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