run_library_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It reveals only that script tools are left executable (not run), but does not state side effects, whether state is modified, whether approval is required, or what 'active' means. The output schema exists but the description does not mention the outcome.

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 a single short sentence with no wasted words, and the key action is front-loaded. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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?

With six parameters, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and several related sibling tools, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain what an active prompt recipe is, how it relates to running a library tool, what the parameters control, or what happens to the recipe after preparation.

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 explain the parameters. It does not mention slug, input_text, quality, allow_paid, allow_user_pays, or reasoning_effort at all, leaving the agent to guess their meanings and formats.

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 says 'Prepare an active prompt recipe,' which names a verb and a resource, but the resource is jargon and the tool name ('run_library_tool') conflicts with the stated 'prepare' action. It also hints that script tools are not executed, but does not clearly distinguish this from siblings like prepare_task or run_prepared_task.

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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The phrase 'approved script tools remain separately executable' merely states what the tool does not do, not when to choose it over list_library_tools, prepare_task, or run_prepared_task.

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