fow_ground_intent

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is already carried. The description goes beyond that by disclosing async behavior ('Schedules bounded grounding'), that audit evidence is recorded from optional integrations, and the important caveat that 'grounding is not acceptance.' It does not spell out receipt/idempotency semantics beyond pointing at the help route.

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 content is front-loaded with the purpose, then prerequisites, then effects, which is a sensible order and each block earns its place. It is slightly redundant ('host mode uses fow_semantic' repeats the earlier external-host routing sentence) and the trailing self-referential help pointer adds length, but nothing is padded.

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?

This is a non-idempotent, open-world mutation that schedules a job, and the description covers prerequisites, blocking behavior, side effects (audit evidence), and the semantic limit of the result. Because an output schema exists, it need not describe return values. The main residual gap is that it does not describe how to observe the scheduled job's progress.

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 100% and all five parameters carry their own descriptions (actor, project_id, request_id, goal_node_ids, source_revision), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail, which is the expected baseline when coverage is complete.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Run the configured internal intention-grounding workflow to compare selected goals with implementation evidence'), which is far more precise than the bare tool name. It immediately distinguishes itself from the closest sibling by stating 'For an external host assignment use fow_semantic.' An agent can separate fow_ground_intent from fow_semantic without opening either schema.

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?

It gives explicit routing guidance: use this tool for internal intention grounding, use fow_semantic for an external host assignment. Prerequisites are stated concretely ('Requires configured internal inference and the implementation/source provider') along with the consequence of missing them ('Missing prerequisites block the job'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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