Execute an approved runbook

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

The description adds behavioral detail beyond the annotations by warning that only commands declared in a version-controlled runbook may be executed, and by disclosing both the global execution gate and the special approval token needed for mutating plans. This meaningfully helps an agent understand the operational restrictions around execution, while the destructiveHint annotation is not contradicted.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the core scoping rule, then state the indispensable prerequisites. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, with no repetition or irrelevant detail.

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?

The description adequately covers the approval and mutating-plan aspects of the tool, which matters given its destructive, non-idempotent nature. However, with three parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, it omits crucial guidance about what the 'id' refers to, how variables are used, and what happens on invocation. This leaves the definition minimally usable, not fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description itself must clarify parameters, but it does not. It indirectly references the approvalToken concept when mentioning an out-of-band approval token, but it never explains the 'id' parameter or the 'variables' object, both of which are non-obvious and important for actual invocation.

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 names a concrete verb, 'execute', and a specific scoped resource: commands declared only in a version-controlled runbook. It clearly differentiates this execution action from the sibling 'inspect_runbook' and 'list_runbooks' tools by focusing on execution rather than inspection or enumeration.

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 gives clear preconditions for use: the global execution gate is required, and mutating runbooks additionally require an out-of-band approval token. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare it to siblings, but the prerequisites provide enough context for when it is valid to invoke.

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