form_create_from_tsm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it states the exactly-one-of constraint, enumerates error conditions with their resulting error codes, clarifies that invalid TSM text leaves nothing behind, and describes the return object. This is rich disclosure for a mutation/creation tool.

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 definition is front-loaded with the core action and the exactly-one-of rule, then moves to workflow, errors, and return shape. It is somewhat dense but each section contributes useful information; there is little wasted text.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the important behavioral context: input exclusivity, error modes, failure side effects, workflow guidance, and return structure. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly and interpret common failures.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds a critical semantic constraint—exactly one of `tsm` and `path`, with both/neither producing INVALID_PARAMS—and mentions the 8 MiB text limit, which meaningfully supplements the schema.

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 states a specific verb-and-resource pair: 'Create a T-spline body from TSM text or a .tsm file.' It also explicitly distinguishes the tool from siblings by naming form_get_tsm as the read counterpart and by framing this as the way to perform complex control-mesh edits that the Fusion API lacks.

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 usage context: it is for complex control-mesh edits and outlines the workflow form_get_tsm -> change text -> form_create_from_tsm -> hide/delete old form. It does not explicitly contrast with form_create_primitive, but the intended context is clear enough for an agent to select correctly.

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