execute_file

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write/idempotency profile is already covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: an automatic snapshot rollback when the build fails. It still omits whether code is executed in a sandbox, what permissions are needed, and whether partial output survives a rollback.

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?

Two short sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. The terseness is efficient but tips into under-specification for a four-parameter tool, so it is neither wasteful nor fully earning its length.

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-read-only, non-idempotent execution tool with four undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description says far too little. The rollback note is the one substantive detail; execution scope, error surface, and parameter meanings are all 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 0% across four parameters, so the description carries the full burden and does not meet it. The word 'снимок' (snapshot) hints at the snapshot parameter but never explains what path, params_json, or result_name do. An agent cannot populate the optional parameters from this text.

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 verb (build/assemble) and a resource (models/*.py), which is more than a restatement of the name. However, it is not clear how this differs from the sibling 'execute' or 'script', and the target 'models/*.py' is ambiguous for a tool named execute_file. An agent must guess whether this runs arbitrary files or a specific build step.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the closely related 'execute', 'script', or 'workflow_hints' siblings. The only situational cue is implicit ('on error'), and no prerequisites or alternatives are named.

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