script_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions deployment prerequisites, not the potential side effects of running arbitrary code, the return value, or any safety considerations. This is a significant gap for a tool that executes user-defined functions.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds a crucial prerequisite. No words are wasted, and every sentence carries meaningful 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify what the run returns. It doesn't mention the return value or error behavior. It also omits the devMode caveat (which only works for the script owner) from the description, though it's in the schema. For a tool that executes arbitrary code, the lack of return-value and side-effect information leaves the description incomplete.

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?

The input schema already describes all 4 parameters with 100% coverage, so the description doesn't need to add parameter details. It adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which earns a baseline score of 3 per the guidelines. The description ties parameters to the function invocation but lacking additional nuance keeps it at baseline.

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 'Run a function in a Google Apps Script project', using a specific verb and resource. This distinctly identifies the action from sibling tools that manage deployments, versions, or content, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 context by stating the prerequisite: 'The script must be deployed as an API executable and share the calling OAuth client's Cloud project.' This helps the agent determine if the tool is applicable. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the unique nature of running a function makes alternatives implicit, so this is clear context without exclusions.

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