forticonverter_setup_prompt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and mostly succeeds: it discloses read-vs-write semantics (omit = report only), reversibility (false shows the step again), the persistence problem it solves, and the notable absence of a CLI equivalent. It does not mention permission requirements or what the call returns, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the read-only default. The VM-eval rationale and the no-CLI note each add decision-relevant information rather than padding, though the explanation could be tightened slightly.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the behavioral context an agent needs: default read behavior, both write directions, and the operational reason to use it. Only the return payload and any permission prerequisites are left unstated, which is acceptable for a two-parameter GUI toggle.

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 100% and both parameters are fully documented inline, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the omit-to-read behavior but adds no syntax, default, or format detail beyond what the schema already states for `hide` and `vdom`.

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 a specific verb pair (show/hide), the exact resource ('Migrate Config with FortiConverter' step of the FortiGate Setup popup), and the scope (GUI setup popup). No sibling tool covers this surface, and the description makes that unambiguous 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?

Explains the trigger condition clearly: without `hide` it only reports state, and VM evaluation licenses are ineligible for FortiConverter so the step never completes and the popup recurs at every login until hidden. That tells the agent exactly when hiding is warranted. It stops short of framing alternatives, but no alternative tool exists, so the gap is minor.

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