run_project_action

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

Annotations already declare the critical safety profile (destructiveHint=true, not idempotent, not read-only), so the description doesn't need to re-explain that it mutates. It adds useful boundedness context (bounded output, bounded timeout), but says nothing about what the execution does to the environment or that it runs arbitrary project commands.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding that states the verb, the key argument, and the two bounding guarantees.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should hint at return shape, and for a destructive tool that runs arbitrary project actions it should note side effects or failure behavior. It covers enough to invoke correctly but leaves those gaps.

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 80%, so the schema already documents project, action_id, timeout_sec, and max_output_chars. The description's 'by id' and 'bounded output/timeout' only loosely echo those without adding format or constraint details, so the 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 (run) and resource (a discovered project action) keyed by id. It clearly differs from the read-only discovery/inspection siblings, though it does not name discover_project_actions, which is its natural upstream dependency.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. The word 'discovered' faintly implies you must first call discover_project_actions, but the workflow dependency and any preconditions are left to inference.

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