Create Custom Form

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context at all — no note on validation failures, whether the created form is enabled by default, or what happens to the discarded slug. With full annotation coverage, a 2 reflects a description that contributes nothing beyond them.

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?

One short sentence with no padding and the verb front-loaded, but its brevity comes from under-specification rather than discipline — the content is essentially the title plus a filler phrase.

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 not be explained, and annotations cover the mutation/safety profile. However, for a nested-payload creation tool in a crowded form-related namespace, the description lacks the field-level and disambiguation detail an agent needs, so it is not fully 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?

The single parameter is a deeply nested object whose meaningful fields (name, command, enabled, description, deprecated slug) are only partly documented in the schema, and the description mentions none of them. It does not tell the agent that 'command' is a required Slack trigger or that slug is ignored, so it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage on a nested-object payload.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (create a custom form), which is better than a pure tautology, but "from provided data" adds nothing and the description never distinguishes this from sibling creators like create_custom_field, create_form_set, or create_form_field in the same domain.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist (e.g. a Slack command string is required), or how it relates to update_custom_form or the form-set/form-field tools. The agent must infer everything from the name.

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