pws_execute_action

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by stating 'Requires confirmed=true' and noting that 'update_worker_attribute' is sandbox-only. These details about execution prerequisites and environment restrictions are valuable. Annotations already indicate destructive/non-read-only behavior, so the description complements without repeating, though it could disclose error handling or side effects.

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 that front-loads the core purpose, then adds guidance, a requirement, and a list of supported actions. The list is necessary but makes the description somewhat dense. Overall, it is efficiently written with no filler 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?

Given the tool's complexity (14 actions, nested arguments object, no output schema), the description provides a useful action list and key constraints (confirmed, sandbox-only). However, it does not describe the expected return value or offer per-action argument guidance, leaving the agent to infer how to invoke each action correctly. This is a notable completeness gap for a mutation 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?

The schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It repeats the action enum and clarifies that confirmed must be true, but it does not explain how to structure the 'arguments' object for each action. Since 'arguments' is a free-form object, the description should provide per-action argument guidance or examples; its absence leaves a significant semantic gap.

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 clearly states 'CHANGE THE CURRENT SAVE' through a validated PWS action, providing a specific verb and resource. It lists supported actions, which concretely defines the tool's scope. It also distinguishes itself from sibling read/plan tools by advising 'Use purpose-built tools when available.'

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 'Use purpose-built tools when available,' which directly guides the agent to prefer specialized tools over this generic action executor. It also lists supported actions, helping the agent decide if this tool fits. However, it does not name specific alternative tools or provide exclusion criteria beyond the generic advice.

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