run_fix_script

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (modifying) and destructiveHint=false (not destructive). The description adds the prerequisite properties, which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose what happens on execution (e.g., whether output is returned, potential side effects, or error behavior). Given the annotations cover safety, a 3 is appropriate—it adds some value but lacks behavioral depth.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and then provides the required preconditions. There is no filler or repetition—every word adds value.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It states what it does, how to specify the target, and the necessary environment settings. It omits details about return values or failure modes, but given the simplicity and lack of an output schema, this is acceptable.

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 100% and both parameters have basic descriptions. The description only reiterates that the script can be identified by name or sys_id, which is already evident from the parameter names. It does not explain precedence if both are provided or any format expectations, but since the schema is complete, the baseline of 3 is met.

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 ('Execute') with a clear resource ('fix script (sys_script_fix)') and the two identification methods (name or sys_id). It distinguishes this tool from generic script executors like execute_script or execute_background_script by naming the exact artifact type. This is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 clear usage context by stating the required properties (WRITE_ENABLED=true and SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true) that must be true for execution. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the requirement acts as a precondition. The tool's purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when to choose it over generic script runners.

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