Create a form

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the form is scoped to the API key's tenant, which is real auth/multi-tenancy context. It does not state what is returned on success (no output schema exists), whether creation is idempotent, or what validations/errors to expect — meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then organized into scannable blocks: field types, required per field, optional per field, settings, and a closing tip. The list format serves a deeply nested schema well. The final tip is the weakest line, but overall it is efficient and well-structured.

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 nested-schema creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, payload construction is covered thoroughly, which is the dominant complexity. But the description omits the return value (e.g., the new form's id) and any permission/error behavior, leaving an agent unable to predict the outcome of the call.

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 schema already documents most parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description consolidates the required-per-field set (id, type, label, required) and the conditional field usage (options for select/multiselect, min/max for number/rating, accept/maxSizeMb for file), but this largely restates descriptions already present in the schema rather than adding new semantics.

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?

States a specific verb+resource and adds the tenancy scope: 'Create a form for the API key's tenant.' An agent immediately knows this is a creation operation, and the verb form distinguishes it implicitly from list_forms, get_form, and delete_form. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-selection guidance is given. The closing tip ('Keep public-facing forms short') is form-design advice, not tool-selection advice, so it does not route an agent between create_form and siblings. Usage is only inferable from the verb.

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