Run Script Function

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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is disclosed structurally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'executes a function' and does not warn that arbitrary Apps Script code may have side effects, though this is also covered by the annotations. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 a single, grammatically complete sentence with no filler. It states the core action immediately and avoids redundancy with the schema or annotations.

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?

The schema, annotations, and output schema cover parameters, side-effect risk, and return format, so the tool is callable. However, the description is sparse: it omits any guidance about required deployment state, the fact that dev_mode can run undeployed code, and potential side effects beyond what annotations imply. A slightly richer description would improve agent confidence.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter, including dev_mode, parameters, function_name, script_id, and user_google_email. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed given the complete 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Executes') and a clear resource ('a function in a deployed script'). Among the many script-management siblings, this is the only direct execution tool, so it is easily distinguished from list_script_projects, get_script_content, and manage_deployment.

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 use case is implied by the title and description: invoke an Apps Script function by script ID, function name, and user email. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use this instead of alternatives like generate_trigger_code or manage_deployment, nor does it mention prerequisites such as an existing deployment.

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