run_action_by_name

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

The description adds the error-handling behavior (returns {'ok': False, 'error': ...} if unresolved) and notes that resolution happens 'before firing'. The destructiveHint annotation is already present and the description does not contradict it; it adds context beyond the annotation, though it does not elaborate on side effects of the fired action.

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 concise, front-loads the purpose, and uses an Args/Returns structure for clarity. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or 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?

Covers input, resolution logic, and failure return. The only gap is that the success return value is not explicitly described (only failure is specified). Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, this is a minor omission and the description is otherwise sufficient.

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 input schema only specifies a 'string' with 0% coverage, but the description fully explains the accepted formats: named command ids like '_RS12345' or numeric strings like '40297', with examples. This completely compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'Run a REAPER action by its named command id' with a specific verb and resource. It also differentiates from the sibling run_action by explicitly saying 'prefer run_action(action_id) for built-ins', making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It provides explicit guidance: named commands (e.g. '_RS12345' or '_SWS_...') are resolved via NamedCommandLookup, while purely numeric strings are treated as built-in ids and run directly, with a recommendation to use run_action for built-ins. This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool versus run_action.

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