form_get_resource_action_form_data

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

Annotations already supply the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds that binding values are resolved from resource properties, which is useful, but it does not clarify why a data-returning operation is a POST, whether calling it has side effects, or what the payload contains.

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?

It is a single sentence plus the endpoint path, front-loading the verb and resource with no filler. The raw path line largely duplicates the annotation title, a minor redundancy.

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?

With a fully-described schema and annotations present, the missing pieces are modest, but there is no output schema and the description does not describe the returned 'resolved binding values' structure — the thing the tool is named for — leaving a real gap for a caller.

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 100%, so id, body, and projectId are already documented in the schema. The description adds no further meaning to these parameters (e.g. what 'resource properties' in the body should look like), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (resource action form data) and a verb (returns resolved binding values), so the general purpose is inferable. However, the phrasing 'resolved binding values based on the properties of the resource' is jargon-heavy and it never distinguishes itself from the many other form_get_* siblings (form_get_action_form, form_get_binding_action, form_get_resource_action).

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as form_get_binding_action or form_get_action_form, nor any prerequisites or context about the caller's situation. The agent is left to infer usage entirely.

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