run_action

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint: true, so the agent knows the action can be destructive. However, the description adds no further behavioral context: it does not explain what running an action entails, potential side effects, or any authorization requirements beyond the annotation.

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 extremely concise, consisting of one sentence and a parameter line. The purpose is front-loaded, and there is no filler or redundant text.

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?

There is no output schema to explain return values, and the description does not cover side effects or usage guidance. For a tool that can execute arbitrary REAPER actions, the lack of context about potential effects, valid IDs, and expected outcomes makes it insufficient for safe, correct invocation.

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?

The schema provides only the name 'action_id' and type integer with no description. The description's Args section adds meaning: 'REAPER action/command ID number.' This gives the parameter some semantic context, but it is minimal and does not explain how to obtain valid IDs or provide examples.

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 action: 'Run a REAPER action by command ID.' This identifies the verb, resource, and method of selection. It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling run_action_by_name, which selects by name, though it doesn't explicitly name that alternative.

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 when to prefer run_action over run_action_by_name, nor any prerequisites, limitations, or conditions. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the description.

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