run_action_by_name

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the NamedCommandLookup resolution step, that numeric strings bypass lookup, and the failure return shape ({ok:False, error:...}) without firing. It doesn't cover permissions, side effects, or whether the action is undoable, but for an action dispatcher the disclosed failure mode and resolution behaviour are substantial.

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 purpose followed by resolution rules, Args and Returns sections. Slight redundancy between the prose paragraph and the Args line, but overall tight and well organized.

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?

With one required string parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description supplies the key missing context: parameter format, resolution behaviour, and failure response. An explicit mutation/undo note would make it complete, but nothing essential is missing for a correct call.

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% and the schema only names the parameter. The description compensates by explaining the two acceptable formats (named '_RS12345' / '_SWS_...' vs numeric '40297') and the resolution path for each - meaning well beyond the bare string schema.

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 verb+resource ('Run a REAPER action by its named command id') and explicitly distinguishes itself from its sibling 'run_action(action_id)' for built-in numeric ids. The agent can tell the two apart without inspecting schemas.

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?

Explicitly says to prefer run_action(action_id) for built-ins and describes the resolution behaviour for named vs numeric strings. This is a clear when-to-use / when-to-prefer-alternative rule.

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