code_tools

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds useful action-level behavior: validate does not run code, ai_edit returns code without saving, run returns outputs/logs/errors, and save creates or updates the tool.

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 front-loaded and well structured around the workflow and action list. It is dense but appropriately sized for a multi-action tool, though some phrasing is run-on and could be slightly cleaner.

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 complex 13-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the essential flow, action requirements, and alternative tool. It does not fully describe return shapes for every action, but it gives enough to call the tool correctly.

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 documents many parameters at 69% coverage, and the description adds action-specific requirements such as code for validate/run, agentId/code/userRequest for ai_edit, and agentId/tool for save. It does not explain every parameter, but it meaningfully clarifies the main action-dependent inputs.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: writing, checking, and running JavaScript code tools that execute inside the agent. It also distinguishes this from create_agent_tool for HTTP API tools, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening both schemas.

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?

It gives a clear workflow (validate → run with sample inputVars → save) and names an alternative for HTTP API tools. It also states the required inputs per action, though it does not discuss when not to use save or how this relates to update_agent_tool/delete_agent_tool siblings.

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