macro_execute

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Execute/Run a Macro' and vaguely mentions a managed observable job for async mode, without stating whether execution is synchronous by default, what side effects occur, what it returns, or how errors are surfaced.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action. Minor redundancy between 'Execute' and 'Run' costs a small amount of precision, but the overall structure is efficient.

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 side-effecting execution tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is under-specified. An agent cannot tell what a successful execution returns, whether it blocks, what 'managed observable job' means, or what failure modes exist.

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%, so the description must compensate. run_async gets a loose semantic via 'managed observable job,' but macro_path is left entirely to inference from its name, and the meaning of 'managed observable job' is not clarified.

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 action, 'Execute/Run a Macro', on a clear resource. It is readily distinguishable from sibling macro tools (macro_create, macro_get_text, macro_set_text) whose operations are creation and text editing, not execution.

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 only a parameter-level tip, 'Use run_async=true for a managed observable job,' with no guidance on when to choose macro_execute over other tools or when to avoid it. There is no discussion of alternatives, prerequisites, or context.

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