datto_edr_run_response

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and non-idempotent behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the explicit HIGH-IMPACT framing and the dry-run semantics ('without confirm, returns the request it would send') tell the agent exactly what happens when the flag is omitted. It omits permission requirements and failure behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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 warning is front-loaded and the endpoint, identification method, and confirm gate follow in one compact block with no filler. It is dense but not bloated; a slightly clearer separation between the impact warning and the operational guidance would make it a 5.

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, open-world 6-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers impact level, the confirm safety gate, and how to locate the required target_group_id — the essentials for calling it correctly. It does not describe what a successful execution returns or how errors surface, a minor gap given there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 100%, so every parameter — including the confirm dry-run semantics and the extension_id vs extension_name precedence — is already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the id/name choice but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what structured fields supply. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Run a response extension'), gives concrete examples (kill process, isolate, collect evidence), names the endpoint, and explains how the extension is identified. It stops short of distinguishing itself from sibling datto_edr_isolate_host, which it actually lists 'isolate' as an example of, so an agent could hesitate between the two.

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?

Provides a genuine prerequisite (target_group_id must come from datto_edr_target_groups_list) and the confirm:true gate, which is clear usage context. However, it gives no when-not guidance and does not route the agent away from overlapping siblings like datto_edr_isolate_host or datto_edr_scan_host, leaving the selection decision implicit.

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