create_form

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does indicate a mutating create operation and a consent prerequisite, but it omits what the tool returns, permission/auth requirements, error behavior such as duplicate-slug conflicts, and potential side effects of settings like webhooks or notifications. For a write tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 short sentences with no filler. The main action and core inputs are front-loaded, optional complexity is summarized, and the consent guard is a compact final instruction. Every sentence adds value.

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 complex nested schema and no output schema or annotations, the description should provide more operational context. It does not explain the return value, failure semantics, uniqueness constraints on slug, or side effects triggered by settings. The consent note and the deferred-fields hint help, but this is still incomplete for a mutation tool of this complexity.

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 high (80%), so the baseline is 3 and the description does not need to restate every parameter. It usefully marks name and slug as core and identifies fields/settings as optional, but it implies name and slug are required while the schema lists zero required parameters. It also does not clarify the top-level description parameter, which lacks a schema description.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new form.' It then names the core inputs (name, slug) and the optional payload areas (field definitions and settings), making the tool's function unmistakable. This clearly differentiates create_form from sibling tools like list_forms, get_form, update_form, and delete_form.

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 gives clear context: the tool should only be called after the user explicitly agrees, and fields can be deferred to the Forms editor later, so a minimal name-and-slug call is acceptable. It stops short of explicitly naming alternative tools or stating when not to call this tool, but the usage context is still solid.

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