Run a write API command

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds important behavioral detail: irreversibility for many commands, capability to reach DeleteElements and QuitArchicad, the confirm=true refusal behavior, and schema validation. This goes well beyond what the annotations provide.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, scope, danger, safety gate, and routing guidance. It is front-loaded with the core action and immediately warns about irreversibility.

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?

Given the tool is a generic command runner with high destructive potential, the description covers safety, validation, scope, and when to prefer dedicated tools. It could also mention using list_api_commands or describe_api_command to discover valid command names and schemas, but the included documentation links and output schema reduce that gap.

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 prose must compensate. It meaningfully explains `confirm` and the semantics of `params`, but `name` and `port` receive no explanation beyond their property names. The description partially compensates but does not fully document all four parameters.

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 first sentence states a specific action ('Run one Archicad API command') and an explicit effect ('changes the project'). It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling execute_read_api_command and from dedicated per-task tools, so an agent can tell what the tool is for.

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 description explicitly says 'Prefer the dedicated tools when one exists,' giving clear routing guidance to alternatives. It also scopes the tool to write-style API commands, though it does not explicitly name execute_read_api_command for read-only commands.

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