ff form fields

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral fact not in the structured data: the calling user must hold the fluentform_forms_manager permission for the selected form. It does not cover return shape or error behavior.

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 short clauses, front-loaded with the read scope and qualification. 'no field edits' is largely redundant with readOnlyHint=true, costing a little, but nothing is padded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return semantics, and 'current native field definitions' communicates that adequately. The permission prerequisite and read-only scope round out the essentials, leaving only failure modes unspecified.

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 50%: the 'account' parameter is well documented in the schema, while 'form_id' carries only a minimum constraint. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies given mid-level coverage.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Read current native field definitions,' which tells an agent exactly what is returned and distinguishes it from mutation tools. It does not, however, name the sibling it differs from (e.g. ff_get_form, ff_list_forms), so the distinction must be inferred.

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 field edits' scopes the operation and 'Requires fluentform_forms_manager for the selected form' states a concrete precondition that determines whether the call will succeed. There is no explicit routing guidance against alternatives like ff_get_form, but the required-permission context is actionable.

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