aureon_run_execution

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose valuable state semantics (staged = never on-chain; vault + verifiedOnChain = chain-observed; vault without verified = submitted but not yet observed), which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema. However, it omits whether this is a mutation, what authorization or policy constraints apply, and any side-effect or idempotency behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action statement. The second sentence is dense but earns its place by explaining receipt fields that would otherwise be undocumented, though the phrasing is somewhat telegraphic.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description partially compensates by explaining receipt state semantics. It remains incomplete on permissions, mutation semantics, and the rest of the return shape, so an agent has enough to call it but not full confidence about effects.

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?

There is a single parameter (objectiveId) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 verb and resource ("Run restorative execution for an objective"), but the qualifiers "restorative" and "outside policy" are ambiguous jargon that leave the actual operation unclear. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings like aureon_restore_objective, aureon_run_drift_restore_demo, or aureon_confirm_restoration, so an agent cannot reliably distinguish its role.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative sibling is named. The only context provided concerns interpreting the receipt afterwards, not the conditions that select this tool over the many related restoration/execution siblings.

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