r7_desktop_exec

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key prerequisite that arbitrary JS requires developerMode enabled. However it omits whether execution mutates the live document irreversibly, whether changes are saved automatically, and any side-effect or rate-limit behavior for a mutating exec tool.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the developerMode caveat following. No filler or redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema and no return-value description, and the description never clarifies the relationship to the numerous sibling document-editing tools. For an exec tool with complete schema coverage it is adequate but leaves real gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents args, code, and the safeCommand enum. The description adds no parameter syntax or interaction detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Execute) and resource (safe built-in command or custom DocScript) scoped to 'live opened document in R7 Desktop', which distinguishes it from offline docx/sheet/slide tools. It does not, however, differentiate it from closely related siblings like r7_edit or r7_insert that also mutate documents.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over r7_edit, r7_insert, or r7_table, nor any exclusion. The agent must infer that this is the low-level escape hatch versus the higher-level editing tools.

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