run_asset_action_utility

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is conveyed structurally. The description adds the return payload shape, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about what the action does at runtime, whether it can modify or break the utility, or what happens on failure — context beyond the annotations is thin for a destructive tool.

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 compact lines: the action verb is front-loaded and the return field list is a single dense token sequence with no filler. Nothing extraneous, though the '(or introspect)' aside could be stated more cleanly.

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 no output schema, the description correctly supplies the return shape, which is the key missing piece. However, for a destructive action-execution tool it omits usage routing and any behavioral caveat, leaving the definition adequate but incomplete for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description only echoes the parameter names inside the returns list and adds no syntax or format detail (indeed the utility_path example is truncated to 'e.g.'), so it does not extend meaning beyond the schema.

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+resource: 'Run ... a scripted action on an Asset/Actor Action Utility.' It is distinguishable from siblings like list_scripted_action_utilities (lists) and create_asset_action_utility (creates), so an agent can tell what this does. The parenthetical '(or introspect)' muddies it slightly but doesn't obscure the core purpose.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternatives. The '(or introspect)' phrasing implies a dual mode but never explains how or when an agent would choose introspection over execution, nor how this relates to list_scripted_action_utilities. Usage is left to inference.

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