execute_api_command

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden, but it only discloses that params are validated against a bundled schema where available. It does not warn about potential side effects, error behavior, permission requirements, or the destructive/arbitrary nature of executing any API command.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, front-loaded with the core action and target. Every sentence adds useful information: what it executes, validation behavior, and preference for dedicated alternatives.

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 arbitrary command executor, the description gives the essential fallback role and validation note, and an output schema exists to describe returns. However, it lacks guidance on how to discover valid commands or param structures, and fails to flag risk or side effects for a tool that can execute any API command.

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 should compensate, but it only tells the agent commands are executed 'by name' and that params are validated. It does not explain the semantics of the 'port' parameter, the flexible 'params' input, or expected parameter shapes/formats.

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 the verb 'Execute' and the resource 'any Archicad API command', including the specific command kinds ('API.*' or Tapir). This distinguishes it from dedicated sibling tools by framing it as a general-purpose executor.

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 final sentence explicitly says to prefer dedicated tools when one exists, providing clear when-not-to-use guidance. It also implies this is the fallback for arbitrary commands, which is reinforced by the sibling tool list.

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