alterios_execute_manual_script

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'preflight and readback' but does not explain what these entail, whether they trigger side effects, or what permissions are needed. The 'allow_destructive' parameter indicates potential destructiveness, but this is not clarified in the description.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but at the expense of clarity. It front-loads the action and resource but omits critical details that would make it useful. It sacrifices comprehensiveness for brevity, resulting in under-specification.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, nested object, no annotations, output schema present), the description is severely incomplete. It provides no explanation of return values (despite output schema), no guidance on preflight vs. execute behavior, and no clarification of the 'readback' concept. The agent lacks sufficient context to use 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% — the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds no meaning to parameters: it mentions 'by UUID' (referring to script_id) but fails to explain args, dry_run, profile, project_id, expected_name, expected_active, or allow_destructive. The agent cannot understand parameter roles from this description.

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 specifies the action ('plan or execute'), resource ('manual Alterios script'), and identifier ('by UUID'). It also hints at two modes (preflight and readback). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like alterios_fast_live_bulk_manual_script or alterios_validate_script, which share similar purposes.

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 versus alternatives. The description states the tool can plan or execute but does not provide criteria for choosing between these modes or mention when to use other tools (e.g., validate scripts, bulk execution).

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