form_create_form

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description is not required to restate it. Beyond the raw endpoint path, it adds nothing: it doesn't mention that the call is non-idempotent (repeated calls create duplicates), that lockForm irreversibly freezes layout/schema, or any permission requirements.

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 single sentence 'Create form definition' is printed twice, and the third line is a bare POST path that duplicates what the tool name/annotations title already convey. Nothing is wasted in length, but no sentence beyond the first earns its place.

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?

This is a mutation tool with a deep nested body, no output schema, and no description of what is returned (created ID? full object?) or what the required name/status constraints imply. For a create endpoint with a complex schema, the description leaves significant gaps.

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 only 67%, and one of the three top-level parameters (generateUnvalidatableExternalValuesSchema) has no description at all, while the nested body object carries 12+ properties. The description mentions none of them, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap on a fairly complex nested payload.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Create form definition'), so the basic intent is unambiguous. However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings such as form_post_forms_versions, form_create_or_update_custom_resource_type, or form_generate, all of which also produce form artifacts. The identical sentence repeated twice adds no scope information.

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?

There is no guidance about when to create a new form definition versus posting a version or updating an existing one, and no stated prerequisites. The only usage signal is the implicit read/write polarity of 'Create'.

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