run_script_function

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only partially discloses behavior. It mentions dry_run defaults to True implying preview by default, but does not explain actual execution effects or side effects when dry_run=False. No disclosure of destructive potential or authentication needs.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose statement, followed by a structured bullet list of arguments and return type. It is efficient, though the Args section is slightly verbose but appropriate for the number of parameters.

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 (6 params, code execution), the description adequately explains each parameter and return type, but lacks behavioral context such as actual execution behavior when dry_run=False, permissions, or potential side effects. Output schema existence is not mentioned.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by listing each parameter with a short description, default values, and required status. It adds meaning beyond schema, though parameters_json could be more specific about format (e.g., JSON string).

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 'Execute a function in an Apps Script project' using specific verb and resource, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools that manage scripts (e.g., get_script_content, create_script_project).

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as required authentication, or when to use dry_run vs dev_mode. Implied usage is the only clue.

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