nuclei_execute

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

Annotations already declare destructive and non-idempotent behavior, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds valuable specifics: the approval is consumed exactly once, which implies later calls will fail or have no effect. This goes beyond the annotation hints and clarifies the one-shot nature of execution.

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 tight sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core behavior and the one-time consumption constraint, making every word meaningful.

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 an output schema exists and annotations cover destructive/non-idempotent behavior, the description covers the essential operational concept. However, with 0% parameter coverage, the agent still lacks guidance on what the two required inputs mean and how to obtain an approval token. The definition is minimally adequate but leaves room for confusion about invocation details.

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 must compensate, but it never explicitly explains `plan_id` or `approval_token`. The phrases 'scope-bound approval' and 'exact plan' loosely map onto the parameters, but the description does not state how to obtain or format the token, nor what the plan_id refers to concretely.

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 names the exact operation: consume a scope-bound approval and execute that exact plan. The verbs 'consume' and 'execute' plus the resource 'scope-bound approval'/'exact plan' make the tool's function clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like nuclei_plan, which likely handles planning rather than execution.

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 phrase 'consume a scope-bound approval exactly once' establishes clear preconditions and a critical constraint: this tool should be called only when a valid approval exists and must not be called repeatedly. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the context is reasonably clear from the description.

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