fluig_card_html_url

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that the returned URL embeds an access token (do not forward or log), that the route rejects cardId, and that invalid parameter combinations return HTTP 500 rather than 400 despite all params being 'optional' in the spec. These are exactly the non-obvious behaviors that would otherwise cause misuse.

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 identity and the two security warnings before the constraint details; each sentence carries distinct information. It is dense with warnings but nothing is redundant.

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 9-parameter, no-output-schema URL builder, the description covers the two things an agent would otherwise get wrong: addressing mode and token handling. The remaining gap is the purpose of mobile, managerMode, and currentMovto, which are undocumented in both schema and description.

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 78%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning by naming the two valid parameter sets and explaining that spec-optionality does not reflect server-side co-occurrence requirements. It adds nothing for mobile, managerMode, or currentMovto, which have no schema descriptions either.

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 exactly what is returned — the rendered URL of a form card — and immediately distinguishes this route from cardId-based siblings ("Esta rota NÃO aceita cardId"). An agent knows both the output type and the addressing model without opening the 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?

Gives concrete usage conditions: either documentId/documentVersionId (standalone form) or processId+processInstanceId (form tied to a request), and warns that other combinations fail. It stops short of naming alternative sibling tools to reach for when cardId is what you have, which keeps it from a 5.

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