Execute Anonymous Apex

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

Annotations already declare destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value on top: it writes a debug log to a local file, returns a summary containing that path, and requires confirmation or a server flag for production orgs. It omits whether execution runs with the authenticated user's permissions and how failures surface, keeping it below 5.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: what it does, what it returns, and the production caveat. Front-loaded with the action and no filler.

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?

Covers action, execution context, side effect (local log file), return contract, and the production-org gate. No output schema exists, yet the description explains the return shape adequately, and the 100%-covered input schema handles parameters.

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%, and the schema itself documents apex, outputDir default, targetOrg fallback, and the full debugLevel semantics including category defaults, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that.

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+resource ('Execute a snippet of anonymous Apex') and the mechanism ('via SF CLI'), and distinguishes itself from the siblings by noting the returned file path is what 'the analysis tools accept'. An agent can tell this is the producer tool and the others are consumers without opening schemas.

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?

Clear situational context: run ad-hoc Apex against an authenticated org, with an explicit prerequisite for production orgs (per-call confirmation or the --allow-production-orgs server flag). It never names an alternative tool or says when NOT to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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