Create form card

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers the critical trait: submission sends values back to the chat as the next prompt, optionally shaped by promptTemplate with {{fieldName}} tokens. This discloses the non-obvious side effect (values become a user message, not a tool result). Minor traits like required-field validation blocking submission are not covered, but the essential model is transparent.

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 sentences with zero filler: the render action leads, and the submission mechanism follows directly. Every clause earns its place, including the optional promptTemplate note.

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?

For a UI tool with no annotations and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential end-to-end flow: render, user fills, values become the next prompt. The contextActions behavior is already documented in the schema, and the output schema covers return values. The only gap is validation behavior for required fields, which is a minor omission for an interactive tool.

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 low (29%), and the description compensates for the most important semantics — fields' values round-trip into the conversation, and promptTemplate token substitution shapes the prompt. However, it adds no meaning for title, subtitle, description, or submitLabel, relying on their self-explanatory names rather than explaining their presentation role.

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 uses a specific verb ('Render') with a concrete resource ('a form card') and states its purpose ('to give the conversation context and direction'). The second sentence adds the defining behavior — submitted values return as the next prompt — which distinguishes it from sibling card creators. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, but the interaction model is specific enough to select correctly.

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 implies the use case: render an interactive form when the conversation needs structured context or direction from the user. However, it offers no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, and with siblings like mirror_web_form and submit_web_form also handling form-like input, a sentence routing the agent would materially help.

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