fm_run_script

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Execute a FileMaker script' – it does not disclose whether execution may mutate data, what permissions are required, what happens on success or failure, or whether any return value is produced. This is a severe gap for a script executor that likely has side effects.

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, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized. It does not front-load any key information or elaborate on the action. It earns its place only as a minimal restatement; there is no additional content that aids understanding.

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 4 parameters (3 required), no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain what the tool returns, how the parameters interact, or any side effects. For a script execution tool, this is completely inadequate – an agent cannot predict behavior or results from the description alone.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's own terse parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Layout context', 'Script parameter'). Since it does not clarify or enrich these, it remains 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 'Execute a FileMaker script' essentially restates the tool name 'fm_run_script' – 'run' and 'execute' are synonyms, and 'script' is already in the name. It adds no specificity about what execution entails (e.g., runs in a specific database/layout, passes a parameter) and does not differentiate from siblings like fm_get_scripts, which also deals with scripts. It is a tautology.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing to know script names, which could be obtained via fm_get_scripts), no conditions for when it should be used, and no exclusions. An agent receives no help in selecting this tool over the other FileMaker tools.

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