Create Form Field Option

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 nothing beyond that – no mention of required parent form_field, whether duplicate values are rejected, or whether a default option displaces existing defaults.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, but a mutation tool with a nested object payload warrants more than eight words. It is efficiently written yet underspecified relative to the complexity of the schema.

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 input schema is nested and only half documented, and while an output schema exists to cover return values, the description leaves out the parent-child relationship to form_field_id and any constraint on the value/color/position combination. For a write tool creating a nested resource, this is inadequate.

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 only 50% (color, value, position, form_field_id described; default and type undocumented), and the description contributes no parameter meaning at all – "from provided data" says nothing about the nested attributes object. With a nested object structure, the description should compensate for the coverage gap and does not.

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 says "Creates a new form_field_option from provided data," which essentially restates the tool name and title without adding scope. It does not distinguish this from siblings like update_form_field_option, list_form_field_options, or get_form_field_option beyond the verb "creates."

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 instead of update_form_field_option or when a form_field must exist first. The only implied usage cue is the verb "creates," leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.

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