Run routine

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the tool is expected to mutate state, but the description does not disclose what side effects occur, whether steps are reversible, or what happens on repetition. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'applying each of its steps together' and does not mention the dry-run preview capability described in the schema.

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 efficient sentence followed by a short requirement statement. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no filler, though it could earn a 5 by also surfacing the most important behavioral qualifier (dry-run) in the same space.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, the description is minimally adequate: the schema explains parameters and the output schema covers return values. However, it does not explain what a routine is, what 'applying steps together' means for the system, or how dry_run and idempotency_key affect execution, so an agent must rely almost entirely on the schema.

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 fully documents all four parameters. The description only restates that the routine name is needed, adding no semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter-documentation burden.

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 and resource: 'Runs a saved routine, applying each of its steps together.' This distinguishes it from individual sibling tools like add_chore or set_device_state, which operate on single items rather than composing multiple steps.

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 implies when to use it ('runs a saved routine') but gives no guidance on when not to use it, what alternatives exist, or how it relates to sibling tools such as confirm_action or set_policy. The only explicit usage hint is 'Needs the routine name,' which is more of a parameter reminder than usage guidance.

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