Contact Form Create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the name: no permission requirements, no uniqueness constraint on the required 'id', no note on whether existing data is affected, and no indication of what a successful call returns or what errors look like. For a mutation tool this is a significant gap.

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 tight and front-loaded, but it essentially restates the tool name and title without adding content, which is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. There is no wasted wording, but also no substantive information.

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 described, but for a mutation tool with no annotations and five undocumented parameters, the description is far too sparse. It omits the guidance an agent needs to invoke this safely and correctly among the many contact/comment/webform siblings.

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 schema has 5 parameters (3 required) with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no information about any of them. Critical ambiguities such as whether 'id' is a machine name that must be unique, whether 'label' is the display name, and the expected format of the 'recipients' array are left entirely unexplained.

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 gives a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('contact form'), so an agent knows exactly what operation is performed. However, it does nothing to distinguish this from siblings such as contact_form_list, contact_form_get, contact_form_update, and contact_form_delete, which the rubric requires for 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or the conditions under which a new form should be created versus updated. 'Create a new contact form' is the entire text and offers no routing context.

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