qobrix_top_field_changers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the internal algorithm (pagination over GET /{resource}/changes, counting appearances in changed, grouping by user_id) and the exact return structure including sample_record_ids. This goes beyond a generic 'top users' statement but does not cover performance or rate-limit implications.

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?

Two sentences plus an example question. It front-loads the core purpose, packs in implementation detail and return format, and ends with a realistic use case—all without unnecessary words.

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 complex analytic tool (7 params, no output schema), yet the description provides the return format, pagination strategy, grouping logic, and a concrete example. The schema handles parameter details, so the description gives enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 already describes all 7 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining how parameters fit the algorithm: field must appear in the changed log, resource maps to the endpoint, since/until bound the scan. This clarifies the intent behind each parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Leaderboard: which users most often edited a given field' and immediately distinguishes it from sibling list/search tools by focusing on ranking field editors. The mechanism (paginates, counts, groups by user_id) is clear and unique.

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?

Provides a concrete use case ('who rewrites lead source to direct most often in the last 6 months?') that illustrates when to invoke this analytical tool. It clearly separates it from plain change-listing tools like qobrix_get_changes, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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