Shortcuts Run Shortcut

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context of its own. It does not mention that running a shortcut may execute arbitrary actions, require permissions, or produce side effects, which is especially important because the tool accepts input text, input paths, and an output path.

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 short, but it is empty boilerplate rather than useful conciseness. It front-loads no key behavior and does not earn its place because it merely restates exposure through Apple-Tools-MCP.

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 tool with five parameters, one required argument, optional file inputs/outputs, and an output-type setting, this description is severely incomplete. Even though an output schema exists, the description still fails to explain how to run a shortcut, what the parameters mean, what side effects may occur, or how this relates to the many sibling shortcut tools.

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 explain shortcut_name_or_identifier, input_text, input_paths, output_path, and output_type, but it does not mention any of them. The prose adds no meaning beyond the parameter names and types already visible in the schema.

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 only restates the tool name and says it is a 'Delegated Apple domain tool' exposed through Apple-Tools-MCP; it never explicitly says it runs a shortcut. The agent must infer the purpose from the tool name and title, and no differentiation from siblings like shortcuts_view_shortcut or apple_route_or_run_shortcut is provided.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as apple_route_or_run_shortcut, apple_suggest_shortcuts, or shortcuts_list_shortcuts. The description gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, so the agent has to guess based on sibling names.

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