automations_run_script

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Run a script' implies execution with potential side effects (state changes, actions), but the description offers no details on safety, destructiveness, error handling, or output behavior. The agent lacks critical behavioral 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 with no extraneous words, achieving front-loading and brevity. However, it is under-specified; conciseness should not sacrifice essential information. Every sentence earns its place, but the content is insufficient.

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 has 2 parameters (one required, unlabeled), no parameter descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema (content unknown), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the script does, what the variables are for, or what the return value represents. The agent is left with significant ambiguity.

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 must compensate. It mentions 'variables' optionally, adding some meaning beyond the schema, but completely omits the meaning of 'entity_id' (a required parameter). The agent cannot infer what to provide for entity_id from the description alone.

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 'Run a script, optionally with variables' clearly identifies the action (run) and the resource (script). It distinguishes from sibling tools like automations_delete_script or automations_get_script_config, which perform different operations. However, it could be more specific about what 'script' refers to (automation script) and its scope.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as automations_trigger_automation or services_call_service. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. The description does not help an agent decide contextually.

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