ai_executeMenuCommand

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

Annotations already establish that this is not read-only, not destructive, and not open-world. The description usefully adds that it operates on the current selection and supports third-party plugin menu items, though it does not cover undo behavior, permission needs, or failure modes.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, and the example list is directly useful for an open-ended command-string tool. The long example sequence is justified but slightly heavy.

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 an open-ended menu-command executor with no output schema, the description provides useful examples but omits how to discover exact command strings, what repeat does, and what happens on invalid commands or no selection. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It richly explains the command parameter with many example strings, but it never explains the optional repeat parameter, leaving one of two parameters undocumented.

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 states a specific verb (run), resource (menu command), application (Illustrator), and scope (current selection). Its examples and app-specific framing clearly distinguish it from siblings like ps_runMenuCommand and ae_executeCommand.

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?

Usage is implied by 'run ANY menu command' and the examples, but it does not explicitly say when to use this versus ai_runAction, ai_modifyItems, or adobe_runScript. No when-not conditions or alternatives are named.

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