execute_ruby

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses execution scope, return behavior (last expression plus puts/print output), version-specific syntax limitations, Pro-only methods, undo requirements, and a clear warning that model data can be modified or deleted.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then layered with operational details that each earn their place given the tool's power and danger. Despite its length, every sentence contributes actionable information without redundancy.

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 high-risk, annotation-free code execution tool with no output schema, the description covers execution context, return values, API access, version pitfalls, unit handling, Pro-only limitations, and undo discipline. It is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly and safely.

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 100% for the single code parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description provides useful context about how that code runs but adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema states.

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 the specific verb and resource: execute arbitrary Ruby code inside SketchUp. The description makes clear this is a generic scripting tool, distinct from all the specific modeling siblings like create_face or move_entity. An agent can immediately understand its unique role.

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 provides extensive operational context (top-level execution, API access, version constraints, undo wrapping) but never says when to choose this over a dedicated sibling tool or when to avoid it. Usage is implied for custom operations not covered elsewhere, but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are given.

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