run_verb

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure; it only states the operation and parent-asset relationship. It omits side effects, mutation/read-only nature, cost, prerequisites, dry-run semantics, and output behavior for a multi-verb 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding; the verb list is useful though partly redundant with the enum. It is concise rather than bloated, but the brevity leaves content gaps handled under other dimensions.

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 6-parameter dispatcher with a nested inputs object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is materially incomplete. It identifies the core action but not the parameter semantics, side effects, or return behavior an agent needs to invoke it 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 only 17%, so the description needs to compensate, but it only repeats the verb enum and hints at parent_asset_ids via 'parent asset(s)'. It does not explain the inputs object, dry_run, project, reason, or required formats.

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 gives a clear verb ('Run') and resource ('Forge verb ... on parent asset(s)') and enumerates concrete verb values. It does not distinguish this dispatcher from siblings such as run_recipe or run_agent_brief, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives are given. An agent can infer it is for the listed Forge verbs, but nothing says when to choose this over run_recipe or other siblings.

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