surfmeter_execute_write_action

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds the 'non-destructive' qualifier, which aligns with destructiveHint=false and adds context that this is a mutation but not destructive. However, it doesn't disclose what the mutation does, what side effects occur, or what the response contains. The description doesn't contradict annotations, but it doesn't add much beyond them.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loads the key information: it executes a mutation, it is non-destructive, and it comes from surfmeter_search_actions. It earns its place, though it could add a bit more detail without becoming bloated.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, no parameter documentation, and annotations that only cover safety hints, the description is too thin. An agent needs to know what action_id refers to, what params should contain, and what the result of executing a mutation looks like. The reference to surfmeter_search_actions helps but doesn't fully compensate.

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 for the two parameters. It only mentions action_id implicitly by saying 'mutation returned by surfmeter_search_actions', but it doesn't explain that action_id is the identifier of that mutation, nor does it explain the purpose of the 'params' object. The description adds almost no parameter-level meaning.

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') and resource ('non-destructive Surfmeter mutation'), and references the sibling tool surfmeter_search_actions as the source of the mutation. It clearly distinguishes itself from surfmeter_execute_read_action and surfmeter_execute_destructive_action by the 'non-destructive' qualifier, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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 says the mutation must be 'returned by surfmeter_search_actions', which gives a clear prerequisite and workflow context. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the 'non-destructive' qualifier and the sibling set make the usage context reasonably clear.

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