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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects, permissions, and mutation behavior, but it only instructs to use the endpoint. It does not state that this is a write operation, whether it is reversible, what happens on duplicate creation, or required auth context. The creating nature is implied but not explained.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler: 'Use Lever POST /form_templates for recruiting operations.' It is concise and structured, though it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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 write operation with no annotations, no output schema, and nested objects in the schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what a form template is, what the response looks like, error/failure behavior, or required permissions. The generic 'recruiting operations' adds little context.

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 covers 100% of the 6 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds endpoint context but no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It does not hurt or help 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 names the exact endpoint (POST /form_templates) and domain ('recruiting operations'), which clearly implies creating a form template and distinguishes it from sibling get/list/update/delete form_template tools. However, it never explicitly uses the verb 'create' or states the outcome, relying on REST semantics and the tool name.

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 versus alternatives like create_feedback_template or create_opportunity_form. 'for recruiting operations' is generic and does not specify prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when not to use it. Only the tool name and endpoint imply the usage.

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