Create a subscription form

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description explicitly warns that this operation 'may notify recipients or change tenant data' and requires 'operator write opt-in and confirm:true'. This is valuable behavioral context for a write endpoint that has side effects like notifications and tenant changes, exactly the kind of context an agent needs before invoking it.

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 compact and information-dense: it front-loads the core action, then gives the endpoint, body fields, reference link, and the critical operator/confirm requirement in two sentences. Every sentence contributes unique information without unnecessary fluff.

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 description provides the endpoint, body field list, reference URL, and required confirmation flag. There is no output schema, but for a create operation the most important context (side effects, auth requirement, confirm) is present. It doesn't describe the response shape or other behavioral details, but the reference link covers that and the essential invocation context is complete.

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 75%, and the description lists the body fields (name, description, scope, form, oneWay, etc.), which adds meaning beyond the schema's generic 'Complete API JSON payload' text. The schema already documents planId and confirm, and the description adds the endpoint and a reference URL for full field semantics. This compensates well for the remaining gap.

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 identifies the operation ('Create a subscription form'), specifies the HTTP method and endpoint (POST /api/xm/1/plans/{planId}/subscription-forms), and lists the body fields. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like xmatters_modify_a_subscription_form or xmatters_get_subscription_forms_in_a_plan because it explicitly says 'Create' and provides the exact target resource.

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 this tool (when creating a subscription form) through the verb and resource, and the endpoint clarifies the plan-scoped context. It notes the operator write opt-in and confirm:true requirement, which is a key gate for use. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives for modification or retrieval, but the 'Create' verb and the URL make the intended use clear enough.

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