agent_studio_execute_agent

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

While annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description itself adds no behavioral context. It does not state what side effects execution has, whether it requires authentication, how long it may take, or what happens on failure. Given the annotations exist, some burden is lifted, but the description contributes nothing beyond the vague phrase 'Execute Agent'.

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 extremely terse—only two words—which is under-specification rather than purposeful concision. It lacks any front-loaded critical information, such as the need for an agent ID and message, or the session management nuance of executionId. While brief, it fails to earn its place by omitting essential guidance.

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 9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no behavioral annotation beyond hints, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain how the execution works, what a successful response looks like, or how to handle sessions and versions—all of which are covered in the parameter descriptions but not in the tool-level text. An agent cannot reliably call this tool correctly based on the description alone.

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 78%, meaning most parameters have descriptions in the schema itself (e.g., message, contactId, executionId). The tool description does not add any parameter-level meaning. Since coverage is above 50% but not >80%, a baseline of 3 is applied per the rubric, and nothing in the description pushes it higher.

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 'Execute Agent' directly restates the tool name, providing no additional verbs, resources, or scope. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like agent_studio_execute_agent_deprecated or other execute-related tools, leaving the agent to infer what 'execute' means in this context. This is a tautology that adds no clarity beyond the name itself.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. For example, it does not mention that this tool runs an agent synchronously, how it relates to creating or managing agents, or when to use the deprecated version. An agent has no basis to decide between this and similar tools based on the description.

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