customize_signup_form

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

Annotations are all false (no readOnly, idempotent, or destructive hints), so the description carries the burden. The description correctly implies it is a mutation (not read-only) and states return value, but does not disclose side effects like irreversible changes, authorization needs, or rate limits. It adds moderate context but leaves gaps.

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 reasonably concise with a clear first sentence and structured Args. It includes examples, but the length could be trimmed slightly. Overall, it is well-organized and front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 description covers the basic functionality and returns mention, but due to the missing 'account' parameter and assumption of prior knowledge about signup form structure (e.g., specific section names), it is not fully complete. The presence of an output schema (not shown) reduces the need to detail returns, but the parameter gap still holds.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description's Args list covers 4 of 5 parameters (list_id, header, contents, styles) but omits the 'account' parameter present in the schema. It provides examples for header and contents, and explains section names, but the missing 'account' parameter is a significant gap, reducing usefulness for correct invocation.

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 customizes an audience's default signup form, specifying the components (header, content sections, and styles). It uses a specific verb ('Customize') and resource ('signup form'), and the presence of sibling tools like list_signup_forms differentiates it from inspection tools.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'At least one of header, contents, or styles must be provided' and 'Use list_signup_forms first to inspect the current form and mirror its structure.' This tells when to use the tool and a prerequisite, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it.

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