matcher-execute

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=trueborn, readOnlyHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds scope information but does not elaborate on the effects of actions, auth requirements, or error behavior. It provides some context about the 'live slice' but not deep behavioral details.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose and scope; the second directs to matcher-discover for prerequisites. It is front-loaded with the action verb and resource list, with no redundant phrasing or filler.

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's breadth (8 resource types) and that it's an executor with an input schema that documents parameters, the description provides adequate scope but doesn't explain action-specific requirements, return formats, or caveats. It points to discover for details, which partially compensates, but for such a flexible tool, more context on usage patterns could be added.

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 input schema provides 100% description coverage for all 8 parameters, including examples like 'create', 'startExtraction' for action Apaçı and pathParams/queryParams explanations. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond pointing to matcher-discover for payload inspection, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Execute Matcher API actions' and enumerates specific resource areas (contexts, sources, field maps, etc.), distinguishing it from the sibling 'matcher-discover' tool which is for inspection. It uses a specific verb and identifies the resource scope, though it is somewhat generic as an execute-all tool.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Use matcher-discover first to inspect payloads, required headers, and reporting export behavior,' providing clear guidance on when to use the sibling tool before this one. It implies this tool is for execution after discovery, giving context for appropriate usage.

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