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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is partially covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: the effect depends entirely on the action definition and may mutate properties, set links, or trigger follow-up processes — warning the agent it is not a read. It does not cover failure modes or whether prompts are mandatory for certain actions.

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 behavioral caveat and the pointer to onto_actiondef_list are front-loaded and earn their place. The trailing '| EN: object, record, entry, property, link, search' keyword string is filler that dilutes an otherwise tight two-sentence definition.

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 non-idempotent mutation with annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it does, that effects vary by action, and where to find valid actions. It leaves open how the result should be interpreted and whether prompts are conditionally required, but no critical calling information is missing.

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%, so udid, action_key and prompts are already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description adds no extra semantics about the prompts object shape or how action_key values map to definitions beyond the schema's examples.

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 (execute a stored action/button/automation on an object) and distinguishes it from the discovery sibling by pointing to onto_actiondef_list for enumerating available actions. An agent can tell it apart from onto_actiondef_save/delete and onto_object_bulk_action.

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 triggering condition ('when an action is offered on the object') and names onto_actiondef_list as the way to discover valid actions. It stops short of explicit exclusions, e.g. when to prefer onto_object_bulk_action or set_property directly, so no 5.

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