Turn qualification questions into a routing form

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

The description discloses meaningful behavior beyond annotations: the form is editable, there is a fallback rule routing to a meeting type or callback, and the returned formId is intended for a qualifying web chat profile. These details help an agent anticipate the created artifact and its downstream use, and nothing contradicts the annotations.

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 contain the essential behavior and output context without wordiness. The first sentence is somewhat long but still information-dense and readable, and the second sentence adds useful guidance about the formId's role.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values in depth, and it covers the main creation behavior plus the web chat profile use case. It omits explicit alternative routing, but the schema and annotations cover most remaining context.

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 coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents most parameter meanings. The description's mention of 'meeting type or callback' mirrors the schema's explanation of meetingTypeId but adds no new parameter-level detail beyond what the input schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Create'), a specific deliverable ('routing form from supplied qualification questions'), and the key behavior ('structured fields the company can edit' plus a fallback rule). This clearly distinguishes it from generic siblings like create_routing_form without needing to open the schema.

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 when to use it — when you have supplied qualification questions and need a routing form — but it does not explicitly name alternatives such as create_routing_form or explain when one would prefer that generic sibling. Usage context is clear but not explicitly contrasted.

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