create_form

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does add genuine behavioral detail: the six settings are enforced as named parameters to prevent omission, and named parameters override duplicates in extra_settings. However, it omits permissions/auth requirements, validation or failure behavior, and what creation side effects occur.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the parameter mechanics. Each sentence carries information, though the rationale sentence ('so a model cannot omit them') is explanatory rather than operational.

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 need no explanation, and the required-vs-extra_settings mechanics are covered. But for an 8-parameter creation tool with no annotations, the description lacks auth/permission context and gives no hint about element structure, leaving the agent under-informed about non-parameter aspects.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning the schema cannot: the interaction between the named required parameters and extra_settings, plus the explicit precedence rule. It does not explain enum values or element/extra_settings formats, leaving some room above.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Create a new form') and clarifies scope (settings plus optional elements), which distinguishes it from mutation siblings like update_form_settings or replace_form_elements. It does not explicitly name any alternative tool, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied by the creation verb, and there is useful guidance about how to supply parameters (named vs. extra_settings), but nothing states when to reach for create_form versus update_form_settings or duplicate/lookup tools. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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