create_form_submission

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the submission is created as a draft and mentions the optional 'data' field. However, it does not reveal other behavioral traits such as required permissions, side effects, or behavior on duplicate calls.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. Every sentence adds value: first states the purpose and key parameter, second clarifies the draft behavior and workflow. No wasted words.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, with 4 parameters, only 2 are explained, and there are no annotations to cover behavioral expectations. The description is incomplete for a tool with moderate complexity.

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?

The description explains only two of four parameters: 'form_schema' (the schema id) and 'data' (optional initial values). It does not explain 'title' or 'report_date', which are present in the schema with default values but no further description. Given 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate more.

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 specific verbs ('start a new ... submission') and clearly identifies the resource ('inspection-form submission') and key input ('form schema id'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'complete_form_submission' which locks the submission.

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 explicitly states the tool is for starting a new submission as a draft and directs the user to use 'complete_form_submission' to lock it. This provides clear context on the workflow, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or describe alternatives for other use cases.

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