Create form response options

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the requirement for operator write opt-in and the potential to notify recipients or change tenant data. It also specifies confirm:true as a gate, which aligns with the schema. These details go beyond the annotations and help the agent anticipate consequences.

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 front-loaded: it starts with the core action and endpoint, then lists body fields, a reference link, and prerequisites. Every sentence contributes necessary information without verbosity. The structure is ideal for quick agent consumption.

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?

For a destructive mutation with a nested body and confirmation gate, the description covers the endpoint, required parameters (path, confirm), body field outline, prerequisites, and side effects. It does not mention the return value or response format, but no output schema exists and the API reference is provided. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though a note on the expected response would be a minor enhancement.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by enumerating the body fields (number, text, description, prompt, action, contribution, joinConference, allowComments, redirectUrl, translations), which the schema's body definition leaves generic ('Complete API JSON payload'). It also reinforces the confirm:true requirement. While not exhaustive, it meaningfully improves parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 clear verb ('Create') and a specific resource ('form response options'), backed by the HTTP endpoint POST /api/xm/1/forms/{formId}/response-options. This unambiguously differentiates it from sibling tools like get or modify response options. The list of body fields further clarifies the tool's scope.

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 essential usage context: it requires operator write opt-in and confirm:true, and warns of side effects (may notify recipients or change tenant data). It does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., 'use modify_a_form_response_option for updates'), but the name and endpoint make the intended use clear. It covers prerequisites and consequences well.

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