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

With no annotations present, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the two most important traits — the operation has side effects and the result always includes an executionId — but says nothing about permissions/scopes, reversibility, error behavior, or whether workspaceId is required to scope the call.

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 short clauses, zero waste, with the mutation warning front-loaded ahead of the parameter-sourcing guidance and the return-value note. Every sentence earns its place.

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 generic dynamic dispatcher with nested free-form params and no output schema, the description covers the invocation workflow well but leaves the workspaceId parameter and failure/permission behavior undocumented. An agent can call it correctly but not predict what will happen when the call is rejected or what the response contains beyond executionId.

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 must compensate. It usefully explains where toolId comes from and that params must conform to paramsSchema, which is meaningful guidance the schema cannot give. However, workspaceId is never mentioned, and neither is the fact that params is an arbitrary free-form object validated at runtime.

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 and resource ('Run a dynamic tool') and immediately flags that it produces side effects, which distinguishes it from the read-only siblings get_dynamic_tools and get_dynamic_tool_schema. It stops short of explaining how it differs from other mutation siblings such as apply_operations or test_run_block.

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?

Gives a clear prerequisite chain: obtain toolId from get_dynamic_tools and shape params per the paramsSchema returned by get_dynamic_tool_schema. It does not state any when-not-to-use conditions or when to prefer a direct tool over this generic dispatcher, but the sequencing guidance is concrete.

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