spatial_form_contract

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not required to restate the safety profile. It adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those hints: 'live' indicates current state rather than stored configuration, and 'drift against the reference version' reveals a comparison behavior that is not visible in the schema or annotations. It also enumerates the kinds of values the form exposes, which helps set expectations for return contents.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the subject ('The live admin form') and then details the useful content after a colon. It contains no filler, though the phrase 'layer/upload or field' is slightly awkward and could be tightened to match the schema's actual kind values.

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 simple read-only tool with two parameters and safety covered by annotations, the description conveys the essential domain object and output themes. However, with no output schema and no explanation of the 'id' parameter, and no usage guidance, it is not fully complete for an agent that needs to call it correctly in a rich sibling 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning, but it only loosely maps to the parameters. The phrase 'layer/upload or field' hints at the 'kind' enum, though it also introduces 'upload' which is not a valid enum value. The 'id' parameter is entirely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess what identifier is required.

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 identifies a specific artifact — 'the live admin form for a layer/upload or field' — and names the information it exposes: 'what the UI allows (maxlength, options, read-only)' and 'drift against the reference version.' This distinguishes it from sibling getters like spatial_get_layer or spatial_get_field by focusing on UI constraints and reference drift. The phrase 'layer/upload or field' is slightly ambiguous because the enum only allows 'layer' and 'field', but the core purpose is still clear.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of related siblings such as spatial_layer_admin, spatial_get_layer, or spatial_get_field. The user must infer from the description that this is about inspecting form-level UI properties and drift, which is weak guidance for an agent choosing among 30+ sibling tools.

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