execute_method

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false, indicating the tool can modify data. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations—no mention of side effects, permissions required, or safety considerations. Given the annotations, the description should at least reinforce the destructive nature or clarify when destruction might occur.

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 short sentence, which is concise but not optimally structured. It could be expanded with key information (use case, restrictions) without becoming verbose. Front-loads the core action but omits important guidance.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description fails to explain return values, error behaviors, or side effects. For a destructive, open-world tool with 5 parameters and many siblings, this is insufficient. The description should at least mention safety warnings or when to prefer this over similar tools.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter (model, method, args, kwargs, instance) already described. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Per the rubric, baseline is 3 since schema coverage is high.

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 custom method on an Odoo model' clearly identifies the action (execute) and the resource (custom method on Odoo model). It distinguishes from siblings like 'execute_approved_write' (specific to writes) and 'diagnose_odoo_call' (testing). However, it could be more precise about what constitutes a 'custom method' versus blocked methods (create/write/unlink), which are noted only in the parameter schema.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, comparable tools (e.g., 'execute_approved_write' for safe writes, 'read_record' for reading), or scenarios where this tool is inappropriate. The blocked methods are only stated in a parameter description, not in the tool description.

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