run_ai_action

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic action. Annotations indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds no context about what 'run' entails (e.g., potentially mutating state, generating a response, or requiring specific permissions).

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 concise with two sentences that front-load the purpose. No unnecessary information, though it could be slightly expanded to cover key parameters without becoming verbose.

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 tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the AI Action concept, return format, or behavior with multiple messages, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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?

With only 33% schema description coverage, the description should explain the remaining parameters. It only mentions message_ids, leaving prompt_id, channel_id, workspace_id, language, and ignore_existing_response unexplained, adding little value beyond the schema.

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 runs an AI Action on a message or list of messages, using their IDs. It distinguishes from siblings like run_ai_action_for_shared_link by specifying message IDs as input.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., get_ai_action_responses, run_ai_action_for_shared_link). No prerequisites or context for appropriate use are provided.

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