sketchup_run_ruby

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

Goes well beyond the annotations, which already declare destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent. It adds UI-thread execution, the ruby_enabled prerequisite, the default transaction rollback-on-failure behavior, stdout capture, and the inability to forcibly cancel — all material for a code-execution 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?

Five terse sentences, each carrying a distinct constraint, with the core action front-loaded. No filler or redundancy.

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 destructive, open-world code-execution tool with no output schema, the description covers side effects, preconditions, and return-ish behavior (stdout capture). The main shortfall is the undocumented parameters, which the schema does not cover either.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only hints at 'transaction' semantics ('Default transaction rolls back failures'). model_id, active_path, and operation_name are entirely unexplained, and the code parameter's expectations are only loosely implied by 'trusted Ruby'.

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 and resource ('Execute trusted SketchUp Ruby on the UI thread') and names the execution context. No sibling tool runs arbitrary code, so it is trivially distinguishable from model_undo/entity_* operations.

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?

Provides a precondition ('Requires ruby_enabled') and a guardrail ('do not start nested SketchUp operations'), which imply when it is safe to call. However, it never states when to prefer this over task-specific siblings (entity_create_box, entity_transform, etc.) nor frames it as an escape hatch for unsupported operations.

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