run_analysis

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, not idempotent) by disclosing the exact destructive mechanism: NX overwrites the open document on disk, keeps a .bak, includes unsaved changes, and does so even when the analysis is then refused. It also flags the blocking-dialog failure mode, which an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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?

Front-loads the action and the two-step flow before the caveats, and every sentence carries real information. The final sentence is slightly convoluted ("raise a Save As dialog that blocks NX, and is refused here") but not wasteful.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers the risky behavior, disk side effects, and preconditions thoroughly. It is still unclear what the preview step returns and how a token is obtained, which leaves a gap for a two-phase tool.

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% for 2 parameters, so the description must compensate. It never explains what `product` values (gen/civil) mean or how `confirm_token` drives the preview→apply transition, where it comes from, or whether it can be reused — the phrase "preview, then apply" only hints at it.

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 and resource plus the underlying call ("Run the analysis in NX (POST /doc/ANAL)") and outlines a two-step preview-then-apply shape. It does not name or contrast with any sibling (e.g. apply_operations, show_result), so an agent gets the action but no explicit disambiguation.

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?

Gives a clear usage sequence ("Two steps: preview, then apply") and a strong precondition/exclusion: the document must have been saved before and be visible in the NX window title, while a never-saved document is refused and would block NX with a Save As dialog. No alternative sibling tools are mentioned for when this should not be used.

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