Create form card

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the key interaction: submission sends values back as the next prompt, with optional promptTemplate token replacement. However, it doesn't mention contextActions or other behavioral details, but the core interaction 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every word earns its place. It avoids fluff and clearly states the essential behavior without redundancy.

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 tool is complex with 7 parameters, nested field structures, and an output schema, but the description is minimal. It omits guidance on field types, contextActions, sub-labels, and how to structure the form for common use cases. With no annotations and no output description, this leaves the agent with 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 29%, and the description adds value only for promptTemplate ({{fieldName}} tokens). Other parameters like fields, contextActions, and submitLabel are left without semantic guidance. While the schema has some field-level descriptions, the description itself doesn't compensate for the low coverage.

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 verb (render) and resource (form card), and explains the core behavior: collecting user input and sending it back as the next prompt. It also differentiates from sibling card creation tools by focusing on interactive form submission rather than static content display.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'to give the conversation context and direction' via user-filled forms. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives but implies the use case is collecting structured input, which distinguishes it from static cards like create_table_card or create_markdown_card.

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