pws_execute_action

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

The description reveals that confirmed=true is required and that sign_worker inputs are read back and verified, adding behavior beyond the destructiveHint annotation. It also notes the sandbox-only restriction, which is useful context.

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 a single sentence followed by a colon and a list, which is compact and easy to scan. It front-loads the tool's purpose and includes the critical confirmation requirement without extraneous words.

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 six actions and no output schema, the description does not explain the arguments or side effects for most actions. It only details sign_worker behavior (in the schema), leaving significant ambiguity for create_storyline, award_title, create_news_item, and create_email, making the tool hard to invoke correctly across its full range.

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?

The tool description lists the supported actions and mentions the confirmation requirement, but the input schema already covers the action enum and confirmed const. The arguments schema description is detailed for sign_worker, but the description adds little beyond the schema and does not compensate for the overall low schema coverage.

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 identifies the tool as an 'ADVANCED SAVE ACTION' for PWS operations and lists six specific supported actions, making its scope clear. The phrasing 'operations that do not yet have a purpose-built verified tool' also distinguishes it from sibling tools, but it is slightly roundabout.

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 explicitly says to use this tool for operations without a purpose-built verified tool, giving a clear selection criterion. It also requires confirmed=true and flags update_worker_attribute as sandbox-only, but it does not name alternative tools explicitly.

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