Run a script function

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining the script_error return shape, distinguishing script bugs from transport errors, warning against blind retries due to possible side effects, spelling out OAuth/GCP prerequisites, and disclosing the timeout. The destructiveHint annotation is consistent with the side-effect warning.

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 long but every sentence carries important operational information. It is front-loaded with the core action and return type, though the dense paragraph structure and heavy parentheticals make it slightly harder to scan.

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 remote-execution tool with no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete: it covers return shapes, error taxonomy, side effects, prerequisites, permission failures, parameter constraints, dev_mode semantics, and timeout. An agent has enough information to call this correctly and diagnose failures.

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 the description only needs to add marginal meaning. It mostly restates what the schema already says about parameters being positional, JSON-serializable, and dev_mode being owner-only, rather than introducing new parameter-level details.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Runs a named function in the script' and clarifies the return contract ({ done, result } or { done, script_error }). This clearly differentiates run_function from the project-management and setup-related sibling 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?

The description gives clear operational context: hard prerequisites, dev_mode owner-only behavior, positional JSON-serializable parameters, and the 6-minute timeout. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the context is strong enough to guide correct selection.

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