execute_plan

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description is not required to restate destructiveness. It adds useful context about pre-validation and runtime safety checks, but does not explain consequences, irreversibility, or approval requirements beyond what the parameter approval_id hints at.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core purpose and an important prerequisite, though brevity leaves some behavioral details to inference.

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 tool with five parameters and no schema description coverage, this is incomplete. It omits the meaning of dry_run, approval_id, and bundle_digest, and does not describe what 'runtime safety checks' entails or what the agent should expect after execution. The output schema exists, so return-value documentation is less critical, but invocation guidance is still thin.

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%, so the description needed to compensate for the five parameters. It only vaguely maps to validation_digest via 'previously validated' and gives no meaning for dry_run, approval_id, bundle_digest, or plan_id. This is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 uses a specific verb and object ('Execute ... plan') and adds the qualifier 'previously validated' to distinguish this from plan creation or scheduling. It does not explicitly differentiate from schedule_plan or commit_or_schedule_bundle, but the execute/validate/schedule contrast is clear from the sibling names.

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 phrase 'previously validated plan' implies that validate_plan should happen first, and 'after runtime safety checks' suggests a required sequence. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of schedule_plan, or mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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