fusion_bootstrap

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

The description discloses behavior far beyond the annotations: it is safe to call twice, existing catalog objects are skipped and never replaced or deleted, replacement requires a human decision via a shell command, and each new report is echo-checked with a failure mode of being left in the catalog but not registered. This is rich, actionable context not available from readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, or idempotentHint.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, trigger conditions, scope boundaries, safety/idempotency, failure semantics, and parameter explanations are each clearly separated. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the Args section is tight and scannable.

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 complex bootstrap tool with 3 parameters, no required fields, and an output schema already present, the description covers all necessary context: when to call it, what it does not do, side effects, failure handling, and parameter defaults. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 of explaining all three parameters. It does so thoroughly: 'only' is shown with an example and default behavior ('all four'), 'folder' is given a purpose and default, and 'data_source' is explained with pod-specific guidance and an example ('ApplicationDB_HCM'). This compensates fully for the empty schema descriptions.

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 and resource: 'Create the exploration reports this pod is missing, from shipped SQL.' It explicitly names the affected sibling tools (fusion_list_tables, fusion_describe_table, fusion_search_columns, fusion_describe_flexfields) and differentiates itself from fusion_author_report, so an agent can identify its role without inspecting schemas.

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 an explicit trigger condition: 'Call this when fusion_list_tables / fusion_describe_table / fusion_search_columns / fusion_describe_flexfields fail on a pod that is otherwise healthy.' It also states a clear exclusion: a passing fusion_health_check does NOT cover this, and it contrasts itself with fusion_author_report, giving unambiguous routing guidance.

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