Execute a ChurchTools plan

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the token is single-use with a 10-minute validity window, every guarded record is re-read first, and a detected change aborts the whole write. This all-or-nothing conflict semantics is exactly the kind of operational detail an agent needs before firing a destructive call.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the gating precondition is front-loaded right after the purpose statement. Every clause 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?

For a one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, precondition, token lifecycle, and failure behavior. It stops short of describing the success response or how to obtain a token in the first place, but both are largely implied by the preceding write-tool step.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond 'The token of the plan to execute' by explaining the token's lifecycle — valid once, 10 minutes — which is real semantic value the schema does not carry.

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 ('Runs the writes') and resource ('a plan that a ChurchTools write tool returned'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling create/update/delete tools that produce the plan. An agent can tell this is the commit step of a two-phase write flow without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition for invocation: 'Call it only after the user saw the preview and said yes.' That is a hard gating rule with no ambiguity, and no alternative tool competes for this job, so no exclusion list is needed.

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