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

Annotations already declare this tool as non-read-only and destructive, and the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: deferred calls can wait ~25s, polling is available, and rejected calls return error code, message, and offending fields. It also explains credential-scoping behavior for `projectId`, though it does not detail what kinds of side effects invoked tools may have.

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 front-loaded with the core action and name format, then adds scoping, deferred behavior, and error handling. It is appropriately detailed for a dispatcher tool, though some `projectId` details repeat the schema and could be tightened.

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 invocation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential call mechanics, name formats, project credential scoping, timeout/polling behavior, and error handling. It does not describe the successful return shape, but the deferred-run and error notes give enough operational context.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics: `name` must be `sazabi/<operationId>` or `<connectionKey>/<toolName>`, `arguments` must match the hit's inputSchema, and `projectId` has credential-scope-dependent behavior. The example further clarifies the expected call shape.

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 states a specific action: invoke a tool by pasting a `name` from search plus `arguments`, and it clarifies the two valid name forms with an example. It implicitly distinguishes this execution tool from the sibling `search` by sourcing the name from search results, though it does not explicitly say 'use search first to discover tools.'

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 clear usage context: copy the name from search, pass matching arguments, and use `projectId` according to credential scope. It also provides outcome-specific guidance for deferred operations (poll with `sazabi/runs.get` or pass `wait: false`) and rejected calls (fix arguments and retry).

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