form_post_forms_versions

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description only needs to add nuance — but it adds none. It does not say whether the version is appended to the definition's history, what identifiers come back, or what happens if sourceId/sourceType collide. The trailing endpoint path is pure restatement of the annotation title.

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?

Two short lines with the action front-loaded and no filler prose. The second line merely echoes the HTTP path already present in the annotation title, so it is only mildly wasteful.

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 non-idempotent mutation on a nested body with no output schema, and the description explains nothing about the outcome — no return value shape, no note on whether a version number or id is produced, no failure conditions. For a create-version operation the description is too thin to call it confidently.

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 reported at 100%, so the baseline is 3 even though the description says nothing about the body fields. Worth noting the nested properties (name, formType, sourceId, changeLog, sourceType) carry no per-field descriptions, so the description misses a chance to explain semantics the schema leaves opaque.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create form definition version') that an agent can map to the sibling read tools form_get_forms_versions and form_get_forms_versions_by_id. It does not, however, distinguish itself from form_create_form or explain how creating a version relates to creating a form definition.

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 on when to use this versus form_create_form, form_fetch_form, or form_get_forms_versions, and no stated prerequisites (e.g. that a form definition must already exist). The only hint is the raw REST path, which does not tell an agent when to select this tool.

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