alterios_execute_manual_script

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

The description discloses that execution requires write gates, indicating a write operation, and mentions two modes (plan or execute). However, it does not explain the planning behavior or the implications of the allow_destructive parameter. Without annotations, more detail is needed.

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 that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is concise and front-loaded, but could add brief parameter notes 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 tool with six parameters, no annotations, and both planning and execution modes, the description is too sparse. It omits parameter explanations, planning behavior, and how destructive operations are handled, despite having an output schema.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no explanations for the six parameters, including key ones like script_id, dry_run, and allow_destructive. The description must compensate but fails entirely.

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 plans or executes a manual Alterios script by UUID. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'manual script' and 'execution requires explicit write gates', but could better differentiate from other write tools like alterios_call_write_service.

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 implies use for executing scripts and warns about write gates, but fails to specify when to use planning vs execution, or when to choose alternatives. No explicit when-not to use.

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