bourne_execute_plan

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a destructive, non-idempotent action. The description adds value by clarifying that the plan itself remains unchanged (immutable) and lists what is not altered (command, resources, placement, backend, inventory). This supplements the annotations without contradicting them.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the primary action and qualifies it with the immutable scope. There is no fluff or redundant phrasing; every word earns its place.

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 a simple single-parameter interface and an output schema (which presumably describes the result), the description covers the core action well. However, it does not mention side effects or the need for the plan to already exist, which could be inferred from 'persisted'. The presence of sibling tools like bourne_execution_wait and bourne_execution_get partially compensates, but a note about the execution being asynchronous or the need for prior validation would make it more complete. Overall close to complete.

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 has 0% description coverage for plan_id, and the description does not explain its format, origin, or constraints. The baseline for a single parameter with no schema coverage is that the description must compensate, but it offers no additional meaning beyond 'plan_id' being an identifier. This is a significant gap for an agent trying to construct a valid request.

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 states a specific verb ('Execute') and a distinct resource type ('persisted Bourne plan'), clearly differentiating this tool from siblings like bourne_plan (which creates plans) and bourne_execution_get (which retrieves execution status). The scope is precise: it executes an existing plan without modifying its definition.

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 implies usage when you have an immutable plan_id and want to run it, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. There is no explicit guidance on prerequisites (e.g., plan must exist) or when to use related execution tools instead. The context is clear but not explicitly framed.

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