ff form report

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, matching the described data mutation. The description adds valuable context beyond structured fields: the exact internal service calls (ReportService::form invokes ReportHelper::maybeMigrateData), the permission requirement, read-only mode refusal, and the no-retry policy. This is well above the bar set by annotations.

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 with high information density. The mutation warning is front-loaded. Some phrases could be tighter, but every sentence adds material information (mutation, permission, read-only refusal, retry policy).

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 mutating, non-idempotent tool with no output schema and partial parameter coverage, the description covers the critical behavioral traits: mutation side effect, required permission, read-only refusal, and retry behavior. It does not explain return values, but no output schema exists. Could mention what 'native form report' returns, but overall complete enough.

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 description does not explain the parameters at all, but it adds behavioral context (approval, permission) that affects how parameters should be used (e.g., 'confirm' should reflect explicit user approval). Baseline 3 is appropriate given partial schema documentation.

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+resource ('Read the native form report'), and the naming against siblings like ff_form_stats and ff_list_submissions is implicitly distinct. It does not explicitly differentiate from ff_form_stats, which might sound similar, but the resource ('native form report') is specific enough.

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?

Implies when to use ('with explicit approval') and states a prerequisite ('Requires native form-scoped fluentform_entries_viewer'), but does not compare against alternatives like ff_form_stats. The guidance is contextual but not a full routing decision.

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