action_author

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The phrase 'admin action' hints at elevated privilege, but nothing states that actions may be destructive or irreversible, that some actions require a confirmation round-trip, or what permissions are needed — the confirm/confirmation_data mechanics are only discoverable from the schema.

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, the core action front-loaded, with the routing hint second. Every word earns its place and there is no redundancy.

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 mutation-capable dispatcher with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the routing story but omits the confirmation workflow, permission expectations, and failure modes. The 100% schema coverage closes some of the gap, so this is adequate but incomplete.

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% (all four parameters documented, including the two-step confirm/confirmation_data flow), so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, valid action names, or ID semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Execute') plus a specific resource ('admin action on selected Author instances'), and explicitly names the sibling tool (actions_author) that serves a different purpose. An agent can distinguish it from actions_author without opening either schema.

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?

Names the discovery alternative and the condition that routes an agent there ('Use actions_author to discover available actions'), which effectively establishes the discover-then-execute workflow. It does not, however, state when this tool should not be used (e.g., for a single delete, where delete_author/bulk_author exist).

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