Execute a planned MELRA task

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false and openWorld=true; the description adds non-obvious behavior on top: policy is re-evaluated at execution time so a looser-policy plan is still refused, the approval phrase is single-task scoped and expires, and only reads are retried. It does not describe what side effects occur or what failure returns, but the added context is genuinely useful.

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?

Four tight sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the approval/policy caveats follow in priority order. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 a destructive, non-idempotent, no-output-schema tool this covers the crucial operational context: the execution pipeline, approval challenge handling, and re-validation of policy. It omits failure semantics and return behavior, but the receipt-generation mention partially signals the outcome.

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%, so the description has to carry parameter meaning. It explains approval well (id plus exact phrase, scoped to one task, expiring), but says nothing about taskId beyond the schema's uuid format/pattern. Partial compensation for the coverage gap.

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 (execute) on a specific resource (one previously planned task) and enumerates the pipeline stages it runs: policy, runtime, verification, receipt generation. This cleanly separates it from melra_plan (which plans rather than executes) and from melra_task_status/melra_receipt.

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?

Gives a clear precondition (must be previously planned) and an explicit conditional workflow: if melra_plan returned an approval challenge, pass its id and exact phrase. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives such as melra_workflow_advance or stating when not to call it, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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